• Krauerking@lemy.lolEnglish
    302·
    2 months 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.

  • Don_Dickle@lemmy.worldEnglish
    154·
    2 months 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.

  • beefbot@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    112·
    2 months 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 🤷‍♂️

    • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.eeEnglish
      21·
      2 months ago

      You’re describing a cult classic, but I think this will be hard given the absolute shitheads Coppola cast for this movie.

      Shia LeBeouf sexually assaulted and strangled FKA Twigs, and Jon Voight is all-in for Israel and is cheering on genocide in Gaza. They’re despicable people.

      I don’t think this movie will ever glow up. At best, people will watch it ironically.

  • scoobford@lemmy.zipEnglish
    9·
    2 months ago

    I’ve actually been looking forward to this, ans this is the first I’ve heard if it actually releasing.

    I don’t know what’s up with film marketing these past few years, but I miss almost all of it, despite being interested.

  • wjrii@lemmy.worldEnglish
    8·
    2 months 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.

  • Aussiemandeus@aussie.zoneEnglish
    6·
    2 months 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.

    • TachyonTele@lemm.eeEnglish
      4·
      2 months ago

      Eh this film was not made to make Blockbuster profit. It’s a dream project by one of the most accomplished directors, and probably his last one. He’s had flops before that are now considered masterpieces.

  • SineSwiper@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    42·
    2 months 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.

    • beefbot@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      6·
      2 months 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
      5·
      2 months 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.

        • sj_zero@social.fbxl.net
          3·
          2 months ago

          The Thief and the Cobbler is one, it was massively expensive and destroyed the studio, but it was the animator’s magnum opus he worked on for 30 years.

          Showgirls was one of the movies Paul Verhoven pushed for as a personal project, and it literally destroyed the careers of some of the people who were part of the project (and gave many of us a chance to see tits on basic cable at 15, so your sacrifice will not be forgotten)

          Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within was a first of its kind, a photorealistic movie, but the cost and the fact that the movie just wasn’t very good basically destroyed the studio after one picture.

          Disney’s Treasure Planet was intended to be the magnum opus of its creators, but ended up being a nail in the coffin of disney animated movies.

          Cameron’s Avatar is an example in the other direction, where it was this weird movie about blue aliens he really wanted to make that ended up making all of the money. His movie Titanic is another weird one, where you have a 3 and a half hour historical romance that became the top movie on earth.

          Christopher Nolan’s Inception was also mind bendingly popular, and one of the films he used his clout to create.

          I also heard about a movie from 1980 called Heaven’s Gate which destroyed the director, the studio, and essentially ended the era of director-led movies because studios were too gun-shy after that bomb to let that happen again.

          So as you can see, these sort of risky auteur films can either be the biggest flops or the biggest home runs, it really depends on the film and the world around it in that moment.