Estás usando un navegador desactualizado. Es posible que no muestre este u otros sitios web correctamente. Deberías actualizar o usar un navegador alternativo.
Nolan's The Odyssey - Potentially could be epic or an epic flop.
This is why I don't think this movie can break even, I have never seen a movie pushed like this. The advertising budget and cost of flying these stars all over the world has to be at least the same or greater than the production budget.Ver archivo adjunto 9258984
What are the latest estimates on how much it needs to be a success? I would laugh my arse off if this flops. It probably wont. My prediction is middling success which they will spin as a triumph. But it looks grim and with fewer and fewer people going to the cinema and bad word of mouth if it gets that, maybe.
Greeks made statues with many different materials, but my point was that normies assume all Greco-Roman and architecture was all white and marble because all of the famous ruins are bleached and colorless. Despite the meme, Family Guy went against some of the most obvious tropes while Nolan fails at even getting the armor right in his supposedly cinematic gritty retelling.
But the Trojan War happened a long, long time ago, before the Classical period of Greece. It probably looked much more primitive than what people think.
What are the latest estimates on how much it needs to be a success? I would laugh my arse off if this flops. It probably wont. My prediction is middling success which they will spin as a triumph. But it looks grim and with fewer and fewer people going to the cinema and bad word of mouth if it gets that, maybe.
Some people are saying $500 million but that is assuming the $250 million production budget was accurate and it didn't go over and that not one cent was spent advertising the film. The estimate I am hearing to cover the production and advertising after tax breaks is $700 million and I don't think it can get there in the two weeks before it is crushed by Spider-Man.
It will open big and the media will treat it like it is a big hit, just like they did with Superman last year, but Universal is going to take around $100 million loss on this one. That wouldn't be too bad but Comcast is in the middle of cutting them loose because of the number of flops they had made in recent years, so Nolan isn't going to be able to get this kind of money out of them for future movies and unless IMax co-funds his next movie he may have to get over his fetish for that format to produce his next film on a reasonable budget.
His costume designer also made the costumes for 'Bridgerton', which maybe explains why they look so cheap. Except she also did the costumes for "Chronicles of Riddick" which were at least interesting, so maybe it's just that Nolan wanted cheap, shitty looking costumes and armor.
The trope of the warrior woman precedes Xena and Xena aired around the same time as Buffy, Charmed, Ally McBeal, and the Spice Girls. It was the feminism of the time and it was "girl power". It wasn't really woke, more like "we women can do too" rather than "we're better than men!" despite that specific message would show up a few times too.
What are the latest estimates on how much it needs to be a success? I would laugh my arse off if this flops. It probably wont. My prediction is middling success which they will spin as a triumph. But it looks grim and with fewer and fewer people going to the cinema and bad word of mouth if it gets that, maybe.
Well..... subject to all the usual caveats about a significant portion of the relevant information not being made public (because apparently publicly traded companies only have to disclose investment related data privately to major financial institutions) let's speculate based on what we do know.
Some people are saying $500 million but that is assuming the $250 million production budget was accurate and it didn't go over and that not one cent was spent advertising the film. The estimate I am hearing to cover the production and advertising after tax breaks is $700 million and I don't think it can get there in the two weeks before it is crushed by Spider-Man.
As you imply, anyone saying $500m can be instantly disregarded.
The cited budget figure in general circulation is $250m. Nolan does have a reputation for delivering on budget but he also has a rep for authenticity and we've all seen how quickly that can be thrown away. There are well informed industry sources suggesting the cost was significantly higher (e.g. Puck run by Matt Belloni who was the editor of the Hollywood Reporter) We do not know if the budget figure is net or gross of elements such as the Greek Gov't funding though that funding, whilst controversial, amounts to "only" $6.5m in any event. This film ticks virtually every box for enhanced costs the only one missing being production difficulties with no noted overruns or reshoots. Shooting in IMAX increases costs. $3m raw film costs with specialist development and processing taking IMAX film costs to perhaps as much as $20m. Nolan used new IMAX cameras which allow for simultaneous sound recording (IMAX cameras are typically very noisy necessitating sound being added later) but again it's all additional costs. The location shooting increases costs as does the use of practical effects. And of course having an "all star" cast bumps costs. $15m for Damon, $10m for Holland $5-7m for each of Zendeya, Theron, Hathaway and Pattinson - not Marvell Doom figures but that's $50m of the claimed $250m budget just on those six actors and actresses.
Marketing costs have not been disclosed but are clearly extreme. Again virtually every box maximising costs has been ticked for this. Even though there was no Superbowl spot they had pregame, championship game and wild card game promotionals. As we have seen, virtually all of the extensive main cast together with senior crew (Nolan and at least one producer) are being trooped around the world (though not Greece of course) and Nolan and the cast are doing full (controlled) media events which has given us many gems. We've seen the costs for such widespread promotional activities from the wonderful world of capeshit at $150m plus and that's without such extensive world-wide in person promotion. The old rule of thumb of marketing being half the production costs seems too low given the actual marketing undertaken.
Figures doing the rounds estimate anything between $330m to $500m for production plus marketing costs. $330m seems delusional. It assumes the $250m production budget is legit and marketing was $80m (not just less than the industry rule of thumb of 50% of prod budget but less than a third of prod budget on a no expenses spared marketing campaign). $500m is certainly chunky but it's more credible than $330m. You could get to it, for example by the production budget coming in $50m over the claimed figure with $200m for marketing.
It requires speculation but I'd guesstimate total costs at $400m - $425m. I question $250m for production and expect $275m - $300m to be more likely and for marketing it's got to be at least $100m and $150m would not be a surprise. So for the sake of argument let's say $400m.
On the revenue side we all know that the distributor typically gets approx 50% of the box office with slightly more than 50% in NA, closer to 40% in the rest of the World (exc China) and for China, the distributor is expected to be grateful if it gets 20 to 25% of the box office. What's more rarely relevant is the IMAX cost with IMAX usually taking 10 to 15% of the gross box office and that comes (again usually) from the distributor's share of the pot, not the theatre owner's. So those enhanced IMAX ticket prices are rather less enhanced when it comes down to how much the distributor actually gets. Now all of this is subject to negotiation and maybe Nolan being Nolan, he gets special treatment though as Nolan needs IMAX just as much as IMAX needs Nolan, who knows. Bear in mind the IMAX accounted for more than 15% of the total box office receipts for F1 and Sinners and you can expect this to have far more of an IMAX bias. The box office projections are rather fluid (and in recent history have not been reliable) but domestic projections are in the $80m-$120m range with overseas in the $120m-$150m range. So marginal bias overseas.
So.... if the costs are $400m and the distributor is getting about 40% of the gross box office (taking account of the bias toward overseas' receipts and the IMAX deduction) it would need $1Bn to cover costs with a zero return on investment. Now this could be complete bollocks but I've set out the assumptions and reasoning so feel free to tell me what I've got wrong.
Xena is one of those weird shows that was kind of woke as hell but gets a pass because it happened before 2016 when all the zoomies think woke magically began. It was also a syndicated tv show so people couldn't really vote with their wallets; shitty Helen actress appears one week then she's gone - what are we gonna do about it, get out placards and picket in front of Universal Studios?
Xena had the sense to cast beautiful women though. Every lady in it is like an 8 at least. When Anne Hathaway is still the prettiest member of the cast, that's a problem.
In my head it was at least 750-800m so this wouldn't surprise me. Seeing the marketing push I sincerely think it's more in the 200m range for marketing. Word seems to be that only IMAX has been remotely close to booking out on presales so I do not see a world where this is making a profit. Overseas might have been its only hope but they will drop it even harder than local will for Spooderman despite them trying to push it in China and India with special showings. They'll try to jew the figures to feign success regardless but I imagine we'll see a quicker turn around for VOD than expected.
This is a first look at the axe arrangement for the final trial of the axes and they're apparently going with the Ulysses 31 plan, but with the shittiest choice of axe design.
Ulysses 31 (I won't post the theme song, I promise)
Homer doesn't actually describe what shooting through axes means, so it's open to interpretation, hence all the different versions of this challenge in the many adaptations.
But I've always assumed Homer meant something like a line of Mycenaean 'Epsilon' axes like this:
Are we even going to see the gods depicted? Have they appeared in the cast list? Or is this just going to be one person saying to another person, "we must have angered the gods" whilst the director gives a knowing wink to the audience about superstitions?
Zendaya is playing Athena (which is as bad casting as Helen). But from what I've seen in the various interview clips, she seems to only have a little screen time, maybe a few minutes in the whole film.
It's part of why I think Nolan will go with Odysseus going through PTSD hallucinations to show the supernatural elements of the story. Athena will probably only show up momentarily to him when he's drugged or recovering from nearly drowning, etc.
Calypso is a supernatural being, basically a minor goddess; but it doesn't look like they're going with the whole immortal beautiful nymph thing with Theron:
And I've seen nothing of Circe turning Odysseus' men into pigs in the trailers or any promotional material. So who knows if Nolan will even show her magical abilities, or go for a mistaken identity thing like the horny-toad-switcheroo in 'O, Brother'.
So far the only actual supernatural things shown in the marketing releases are a big whirlpool, a hand grabbing someone through a sail, and the pussyclops. And Athena frowning at Odysseus, I guess.
It had no gods or goddesses, or even any hint of divine/supernatural elements. This was actually one of the film's main criticisms at the time.
Interestingly, Wolfgang Petersen originally developed Troy, then WB pushed him to make a Batman vs Superman film instead. They then hired Christopher Nolan to direct Troy. But then, after the BvS film got cancelled, WB gave Troy back to Petersen. And offered Nolan a Batman film, which became Batman Begins.
So, while the Greeks did make many, many bronze statues, they also they made some of the highest quality marble statues in history.
The Romans melted down many of the bronzes to reuse the metal, but famously made copies of the statues in marble (this is why so many Roman-era statues have logs or columns the figures are leaning on, because the original pose was fine in bronze but marble needs extra reinforcement).
Certainly at my local theater, Spider-Man is getting booked far more heavily already than the Odyssey, which is at about 1/3rd the seats in one time slot for the premium screen (and basically nothing for the other screens), while Spider-Man is booked at over half seats.
What is with this attempt at marrying the fantasy elements with reality? I enjoyed both Troy and Clash of the Titans. You can pick one and stick with it. Just don’t intermingle the two with gay 21st psychology or whatever. Nobody wants to go to the movies to see that shit. We go precisely to get away from that nonsense.
The Dark Knight opens on brightly lit days in a city that could be any modern American city, Bane has a mask because there's no escaping it but not a word of why nor any of the drugs Bane is known for.
Who cares? They’re still good movies. Was The Dark Knight 4D chess to get people to see a gritty crime film Nolan actually wanted to make? Maybe. But also consider that Begins was heavily inspired on Year One and The Dark Knight was inspired by the very first comic featuring the Joker (a really good comic in its own right).
What’s wrong is that Nolan went from making good movies to making art pieces. Dunkirk was the start of this. You can make an edit of Dunkirk that’s better than the original movies. That was a sign of things to come. Nolan making The Dark Knight today would feature Pedro Pascal as the Joker who mumbles unintelligbly and doesn’t wear makeup.
"Real" Trojan War happened at the start of Bronze age collapse. Period of couple of centuries during which most of bronze age states in Eastern Medditerrain and Middle East declined and some of them collapsed completely. Greece was hit pretty hard , because there are no written records from this period of Greek dark ages. What emerges is Archaic greece. Which will eventually evolve into Classical Greece .
Point is even classical Greeks didn't know what happened during the dark ages. So as every other human culture they filled the gap with myths.
It was worse for the Greeks as they went through at least two dark ages including the Bronze age collapse. Oldest one came with or during the collapse of Minoan civilization which happened after a major volcano erupted near it.
Troy happened during the gritty reboot era where anything that wasn't played straight got laughed at. Look at X-Men with the awful black leather outfits and Batman Begins with a Batman who can't kick higher than his knee and lives in Chicago. That said, Troy's a pretty entertaining movie and I can't imagine it would be better with a bunch of gay wizards zipping around impregnating horses while disguised as apples and whatnot. It also had the good sense to call itself Troy instead of the The Iliad, and didn't have fucking Jay Z as a shucking, jiving bard who raps over the end credits.
If you want a more fantastical version, Helen of Troy with Jill Valentine came out around the same time. It's a two-part tv movie with all the twink Gods you can ask for, and she has a sweet naked ass scene.
There's some relatively and probably real workers on this, according to nerdrotic and other sources, that it's kind of what I feared. It'll be mostly at home with souter situation and that all the Odysseus 'supernatural' moments will be seen through a subversive modern perspective that they were when he was passed out and seeing things in some sort of trip/dream when he's over exhausted.
Oppenheimer had some of that, when he looked out at the crowd and saw them burning up in his mind as if they were being nuked. That was a very short shot and worked as a 'vision' for a 5 min scene. And a very odd scene of screwing in a vision he had during the interrogation.
Apparently Travis Scott does narrations across the entire movie. Rumors for now, but they're getting more concrete.
I almost guarantee this will be the most divided movie of years for being bold and brave, vs those that just wanted a nice updated sword and sandals epic (my side on this, and I usually like Nolan)
On the revenue side we all know that the distributor typically gets approx 50% of the box office with slightly more than 50% in NA, closer to 40% in the rest of the World (exc China) and for China, the distributor is expected to be grateful if it gets 20 to 25% of the box office.
It averages to approx 50% but its a scale by weekend. The movie studios get the highest percentage the 1st and sometimes 2nd weekend and then the theatre gets a higher cut after that. I had heard stories Disney had been able to get almost 70 percent opening weekend before covid.
A movie like Obsession for example which is continuing to get screens and movie goers is very likely getting 20 to 30 percent at this point.
There is also marketing spend requirements for certain percentages. If you want 60 percent then the theatres want you to spend enough for them to make it up on volume.
Imax takes its cut like you said but i doubt Nolan got a sweetheart deal sense they cut out Spiderman for Imax for him.
Also another wrinkle is producer and star residuals. No way Daman, Hathaway, Nolan, and a couple of executive producers arent taking percentage cuts off the net. Reduce whatever you see by 5 percent at least.
There is also marketing sleight of hand. I am not talking just marketing spend. They will hire a firm for 50 million bucks (on top of a few other firms) and not ask alot of questions. The firm may drop 20 million on actual marketing and then buy 30 million on "promotional tickets" to help buoy the opening weekend numbers. Cherry on top is when they give the tickets to "charity".
Then you have left pocket to right pocket schenanigans. When Pixar "pays" ABC to show Toy Story ads the movie is all still inside Disney. Or when Disney Plus "pays" licensing fees to Lucasfilm.
There is also marketing sleight of hand. I am not talking just marketing spend. They will hire a firm for 50 million bucks (on top of a few other firms) and not ask alot of questions. The firm may drop 20 million on actual marketing and then buy 30 million on "promotional tickets" to help buoy the opening weekend numbers. Cherry on top is when they give the tickets to "charity".
Then you have left pocket to right pocket schenanigans. When Pixar "pays" ABC to show Toy Story ads the movie is all still inside Disney. Or when Disney Plus "pays" licensing fees to Lucasfilm.
The NY Times 'best seller' list that had lindsay from channel awesome as tops during peak #metoo, nobody fucking bought that, not even her 20k simps at most. The BO's have been faked a lot on that scale, but it seems lately, like a lot of post woke ( and we are post woke) that it's all too small to prop up, opposite of too big to fail.
ETA: The 'expected first weekend' a month or 2 off, has been 30+ percent over. Now, every single movie has to make the money back in 2 weeks, unless it's an Obsession style sleeper.. The budget ones go off to streaming and get nothing over time, not even physical media much anymore and again I shit on the studios for not pushing 4k discs now.
