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

51–60 of 139 posts

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

#51

Post by slg »

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).

What are the big expensive movies that Terrence Malick is making? His budgets have consistently shrunk over the years and his last film didn't even cost $10m. Coppola could easily get that. He just can't get $120m without giving up some creative control and he doesn't want to do that.

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

#52

Post by pdpi »

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…

Every era is an era of horrible films. That’s Sturgeon’s law for you.

Looking at the 2010s as a whole, we got to watch some amazing films.

We got great hard sci-fi like Gravity, Arrival, Ex Machina. The coming of age genre saw entries like Ladybird, Eighth Grade and Booksmart. Animation reached new heights with films like Inside Out, Spider-Man into the Spiderverse, and Kubo and the Two Strings.

We got comedies like The Artist, Grand Budapest Hotel, Death of Stalin, and Jojo Rabbit. Dramas like Moonlight, Fences, Spotlight, Parasite, Blue Jasmine.

Even in the ever-popular comic book genre, we got Logan and Joker playing at a very different level.

But also, it was the decade of the MCU. Let’s not underestimate what Disney has achieved with that — one big overarching story spanning over twenty films, bringing much deeper character development and more serious themes than what we’d gotten used to from blockbusters.

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

#53

Post by firasd »

stingraycharles wrote: post #47
firasd wrote: 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.

2017 is when I first noticed this... Ghost in the Shell, Valerian, Blade Runner 2049

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

#54

Post by ainiriand »

firasd wrote: post #53
stingraycharles wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

2017 is when I first noticed this... Ghost in the Shell, Valerian, Blade Runner 2049

Blade Runner 2049 made their money back, it is just it wasn't a big success.

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

#55

Post by slg »

firasd wrote: post #53
stingraycharles wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

2017 is when I first noticed this... Ghost in the Shell, Valerian, Blade Runner 2049

Care to look up the top grossing movie of that year? There is plenty of successful sci-fi including Star Wars, Jurassic Park, The Matrix, Transformers, The Hunger Games, and Avatar. Every genre can produce flops, but many of the most profitable movie franchises have been sci-fi movies.

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

#57

Post by justin66 »

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 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.

Coppola had to mortgage everything to do Apocalypse Now, and that was following the very successful Godfather II. This is probably why he's so confident about making a big bet on himself again while doing an "off the wall" film. It worked out well previously.

(Megalopolis honestly sounds like a much lower risk thing than sending late seventies Dennis Hopper and Marlon Brando into the jungle...)

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

#58

Post by goto11 »

echelon wrote: post #27
germinalphrase wrote: post #24

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…

> Eventually teenage kids will be making Star Wars at home.

Perhaps, but the same was promised when camera and editing equipment became commodities. There are a few examples like the Blair Witch Project, or Tangerine, a great movie which was filmed with two iPhones. But in general successful movies are still expensively made by professional teams.

The problem is: Even if the technical equipment is cheap, successful movies still require time and talent and lots of hard work.

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

#60

Post by auggierose »

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…

We must have seen different movies. Whose downfall?
Post reply on HN