Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Francis Ford Coppola’s $100M Dollar Bet

gq.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 139 posts

Re: Francis Ford Coppola’s $100M Dollar Bet

#11

Post by scop »

avl999 wrote: post #5

I am shocked he has to put his own money into this movie. It must be really off the wall for a studio to not invest in that. Studios are generally willing to raise money for movies by big name directors even if they haven't had a hit recently (see how Terrence Malick keeps getting to make big expensive movies, most with a-list stars despite not having had a commercial or widespread critical hit since the late-90s).

I recently watched The Godfather 1 and 2 for the first time as an adult and was floored by the two movies (really a single movie, broken into two parts). A complete tragedy executed to perfection. The full arc of the tragic downfall of a man, like something out of the Greek tragedies or Shakespeare.

I then made the horrible mistake of watching Godfather 3, which basically seemed to have 90s romantic comedy vibe with Al Pacino not playing Michael Coreleone but simply playing Al Pacino. What then surprised me even more was that the film received pretty favorable reviews at the time. Wow how we can be blinded in the moment!

I would very much hope that Mr. Coppola achieves something grand, especially in the current era of horrible movies, but color me skeptical based upon his later work. I could understand if executives are wary as well.

On a side note, since you mentioned him, Mallick’s recent A Hidden Life is an absolute masterpiece. It may be my favorite movie (need time for it to sink in). But what a powerful depiction of conscience & struggle. One thing I often wonder about: who is the main character, the man or his wife? Whose Hidden Life is really the subject of the movie?

Re: Francis Ford Coppola’s $100M Dollar Bet

#12

Post by chrisseaton »

echelon wrote: post #7
AmVess wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spielberg has said a few times that it is hard for him to raise money for projects. Other big names have said the same thing. Studios want superhero movies or reboots and nothing else.

Superhero movies are the current optima in (audience appetite, profit, time to delivery, box office saturation / crowding out competition). It makes business sense, it just sucks for those trying to do something different, as it sucks the money out of the system. Opportunity cost favors capes. Hollywood is going to change dramatically over the next few decades as more projects move to post production rendering pipeli…

> as more projects move to post production rendering pipelines

I don't understand - what are they currently doing if not rendering in post-production?

Re: Francis Ford Coppola’s $100M Dollar Bet

#13

Post by MomoXenosaga »

echelon wrote: post #7
AmVess wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spielberg has said a few times that it is hard for him to raise money for projects. Other big names have said the same thing. Studios want superhero movies or reboots and nothing else.

Superhero movies are the current optima in (audience appetite, profit, time to delivery, box office saturation / crowding out competition). It makes business sense, it just sucks for those trying to do something different, as it sucks the money out of the system. Opportunity cost favors capes. Hollywood is going to change dramatically over the next few decades as more projects move to post production rendering pipeli…

Movie theatres in the Netflix era need spectacular and bombastic films in order to draw a crowd. The kind of stuff that doesn't translate well on a 55 inch TV.

Re: Francis Ford Coppola’s $100M Dollar Bet

#14

Post by e4e78a06 »

chrisseaton wrote: post #12
echelon wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Superhero movies are the current optima in (audience appetite, profit, time to delivery, box office saturation / crowding out competition). It makes business sense, it just sucks for those trying to do something different, as it sucks the money out of the system. Opportunity cost favors capes. Hollywood is going to change dramatically over the next few decades as more projects move to post production rendering pipeli…

> as more projects move to post production rendering pipelines I don't understand - what are they currently doing if not rendering in post-production?

Not so sure about post-production rendering, if anything movies are moving to real-time rendered CGI environments [1]. Unreal/Epic have been a big player in this space.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUnxzVOs3rk

Re: Francis Ford Coppola’s $100M Dollar Bet

#15

Post by thr0wawayf00 »

avl999 wrote: post #5

I am shocked he has to put his own money into this movie. It must be really off the wall for a studio to not invest in that. Studios are generally willing to raise money for movies by big name directors even if they haven't had a hit recently (see how Terrence Malick keeps getting to make big expensive movies, most with a-list stars despite not having had a commercial or widespread critical hit since the late-90s).

> It must be really off the wall for a studio to not invest in that.

Not necessarily, it's gotten much harder to produce projects that aren't commercially marketable IP like Marvel.

I listened to a Matt Damon interview recently and he basically wondered aloud if he could get a studio to make Good Will Hunting today, which made me sad to hear. Many of his early movies were low to mid-budget one-off dramas, which aren't really getting made anymore.

If you can't license your film's characters for games/toys/food/whatever, your project is a lot harder to pitch to execs in 2022.

Re: Francis Ford Coppola’s $100M Dollar Bet

#16

Post by Gunnerhead »

thr0wawayf00 wrote: post #15
avl999 wrote: post #5

I am shocked he has to put his own money into this movie. It must be really off the wall for a studio to not invest in that. Studios are generally willing to raise money for movies by big name directors even if they haven't had a hit recently (see how Terrence Malick keeps getting to make big expensive movies, most with a-list stars despite not having had a commercial or widespread critical hit since the late-90s).

> It must be really off the wall for a studio to not invest in that. Not necessarily, it's gotten much harder to produce projects that aren't commercially marketable IP like Marvel. I listened to a Matt Damon interview recently and he basically wondered aloud if he could get a studio to make Good Will Hunting today, which made me sad to hear. Many of his early movies were low to mid-budget one-off dramas, which aren'…

> Matt Damon interview

Would you happen to know where to find that interview?

Re: Francis Ford Coppola’s $100M Dollar Bet

#18

Post by simplicio »

avl999 wrote: post #5

I am shocked he has to put his own money into this movie. It must be really off the wall for a studio to not invest in that. Studios are generally willing to raise money for movies by big name directors even if they haven't had a hit recently (see how Terrence Malick keeps getting to make big expensive movies, most with a-list stars despite not having had a commercial or widespread critical hit since the late-90s).

Coppola's 82, so aside from the usual troubles directors have getting projects, you gotta figure studios are also gonna be kind of nervous funding a guy with a non-trivial chance of dying or being otherwise incapacitated during the course of making the film, leaving them with a half finished project.

Re: Francis Ford Coppola’s $100M Dollar Bet

#20

Post by bigmattystyles »

scop wrote: post #11
avl999 wrote: post #5

I am shocked he has to put his own money into this movie. It must be really off the wall for a studio to not invest in that. Studios are generally willing to raise money for movies by big name directors even if they haven't had a hit recently (see how Terrence Malick keeps getting to make big expensive movies, most with a-list stars despite not having had a commercial or widespread critical hit since the late-90s).

I recently watched The Godfather 1 and 2 for the first time as an adult and was floored by the two movies (really a single movie, broken into two parts). A complete tragedy executed to perfection. The full arc of the tragic downfall of a man, like something out of the Greek tragedies or Shakespeare. I then made the horrible mistake of watching Godfather 3, which basically seemed to have 90s romantic comedy vibe with…

People always say that about Godfather 3, I always wonder if it’s just a thing to say because he put his own daughter in a lead role. Like the critics, I liked it. Not nearly as much as II or I but still. It is a nineties movie though, it’s even different media wise, less grainy. Casting his own daughter when I think, Winona Ryder, dropped out was very nepotistic; and she’s a better director than actress. For me Garcia steals the show though, channeling Sonny and the ‘they pull me back in scene’ is amazing. I don’t know what my point is..
Post reply on HN