Live data from Hacker News

Francis Ford Coppola’s $100M Dollar Bet

gq.com

41–50 of 139 posts

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

#41
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Garc…

> Casting his own daughter when I think, Winona Ryder, dropped out was very nepotistic; and she’s a better director than actress.

While I'll agree Sofia is a much better director than actress (she’s a truly outstanding writer and director) and that Ryder would have been better (Coppola later did work with her on Bram Stoker's Dracula), I’m not going to be mad at him casting his daughter or even blaming it on nepotism. After all, all the previous examples of nepotism, like working with his father, his sister, his brother-in-law, his nephew, etc worked out quite well. Like, the whole Coppola family thing is that they all work together and hire each other. She wasn’t a great actress, but I don’t think she’s want sunk that film. The truth is, any film in a series coming 15 years after two of the greatest films of all time (and the rare sequel that is arguably better than the original, which was already a masterpiece) would have an impossible standard to live up to. Even if Godfather III was a perfect film, I’m not sure it could live up to the hype that the first two carried, especially after 15 years.

And it wasn’t a perfect film. It’s not a piece of garbage but it isn’t in the same league as the other two, which again, are two of the absolute greatest films of all time. But seeing how successful nepotism has been for the Coppola family, I think blaming his teenage daughter is fairly weak.

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

#42
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…

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.

Dune is such a movie and yet Villeneuve basically had to beg and wait for the studio to greenlight Part II. This should have been shot back to back as it's simply an unfinished film in its current form.

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

#43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Dune is such a movie and yet Villeneuve basically had to beg and wait for the studio to greenlight Part II. This should have been shot back to back as it's simply an unfinished film in its current form.

> had to beg and wait

It was renewed within a month of release.

This is a franchise where individual movies cost $150m+ to make. I can see why a studio wouldn't be willing to greenlight all of it at one go, especially given how the previous adaptation attempt at the same franchise was not received well.

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

#45
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 is a big name but in no way a safe bet. His output is inconsistent and his biggest hits are 40 years ago. And based on the interview, it seems he has a hard time explaining what the movie is even about, which is no-go for Hollywood. If you cant pitch a movie in a sentence you can't market it.

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

#47
post #39

It's definitely a bet... something I realized in the past few years is that expensive Sci-Fi movies (excluding superhero franchises) don't usually make their money back.

You have some examples? I just checked Interstellar and The Martian ($145MM and $108MM budget respectively) but they were very much profitable.

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

#48
post #9
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…

The international market is the main reason. These type of movies play well globally and are easily understood compared to dialogue heavy / complex story / local knowledge required stories.

I'd like to see some statistics for that. IIRC most of the big marvel/dc comic movies did significantly better in the US than outside. It sort of makes sense as well, those comic books were not as big for the generation that is 30+ now in those other countries.

The too complex dialogue argument also doesn't really make sense considering that movies get translated in the biggest overseas markets.

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

#49
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s unclear to me why that transition would mean that writers/directors/storytellers would win. Lower costs make creative risks more viable?

Eventually teenage kids will be making Star Wars at home. Or Star Wars meets Scarface. GPUs will surpass 2010's Pixar. This, coupled with real time motion capture and photogrammetry, will enable more creativity than ever before from more people than have ever been involved. A democratization that even Disney won't be able to counter. But to directly answer your question, the process of writing moves off the text edit…

Could be true. Some of the last star wars feel like the storyline was made by teenagers.

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

#50
post #39

It's definitely a bet... something I realized in the past few years is that expensive Sci-Fi movies (excluding superhero franchises) don't usually make their money back.

You have some examples? I just checked Interstellar and The Martian ($145MM and $108MM budget respectively) but they were very much profitable.

Jupiter Ascending. Reminiscence. Tenet. I don't think Ad Astra did that well.
Post reply on HN