Documentary/Biopic Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer

[Boom]

A young Oppenheimer reminds me of an actor but for the life of me I cannot place him.

Maybe a bit of Jude Law.

 

[mclay18]

Yeah, I don't think he's getting 120, but I think he's negotiating aggressively and hoping to secure 90. Probably also trying to use his power and try to help set a precedent for longer theatrical windows. I'm betting he wants to make it a case-in-point for the viability of it as a business model. Which could be a pretty smart move actually. If it worked, studios would definitely take notice.

He should be happy about Universal’s revised terms with exhibitors. Whether the Oppenheimer movie is a hit or not, most of its money will be made in the first 30-45 days. And it will almost certainly open at or above $50M, so it will have 31 days of theatrical exclusivity.

I get that he wants to preserve the theatrical window, but things have changed. Because as soon as the movie loses enough screens, Uni is releasing it for digital purchase and PVOD.

 

[Prison Mike]

Who knows what the state of theater-going will be by the time this movie comes out.

 

[DarkKnight88]

I assume Universal might be pitching this for Awards season as well. Could potentially be something that builds over the holidays.

 

[BatLobster]

I assume Universal might be pitching this for Awards season as well. Could potentially be something that builds over the holidays.

Yeah, I mean what's interesting about this project is you would've thought Nolan would've somehow went even bigger and for something that really demands the big screen experience. But I think this a movie that's more designed to be a slow burn type of thing that benefits from a long theatrical window as opposed to something that crushes opening weekend.

There definitely are slow burn success stories that build off word of mouth and benefit from being in theaters a long time. I mean, Batman Begins was one.

I get that he wants to preserve the theatrical window, but things have changed. Because as soon as the movie loses enough screens, Uni is releasing it for digital purchase and PVOD.

I think the other thing he's pushing for here is just more of a gap between when it's in theaters and when it's released for streaming/Blu-ray/4k. He's argued is that it's a better business model because it helps create demand. I don't think he's wrong tbh. I think the summer theater release/Christmas home release has worked really well for him in the past for example.

The whole thing about the current trend of everything going to streaming as soon as possible, is it cheapens the whole idea of what a movie once was. I think that's the core of the whole debate.

 

[Closerframe]

I understand Nolan is a good filmmaker, but he sometimes makes demands as if he’s living in a different era completely removed from how most in the general audience see movies. If he wants an extended theatrical window, let’s see if Universal gives it to him, but in all actuality, people are changing their viewing habits so I doubt this will have any eyes on it after 2-3 weeks. This isn’t a Marvel or James Cameron level film….

 

[I Am The Knight]

Nolan, love him or hate him, is still one of the few name directors in the biz. His movies do well. Even Tenet did okay considering the times.

 

[BatLobster]

I understand Nolan is a good filmmaker, but he sometimes makes demands as if he’s living in a different era completely removed from how most in the general audience see movies.

I think that's precisely why he does it. He's doing what he can to fight against trends that he (and a LOT of other filmmakers who don't have the clout he does) find troubling. It may be a losing battle, but I still think it's good that he tries.

It's like the film vs. digital thing. Sure, the overwhelming majority of films shoot digitally now. His point in championing film wasn't that everyone should do it. It was to keep it alive as a viable option for filmmakers. And it still is, largely thanks to some of his efforts.. IE- that time he, J.J. Abrams, Tarantino and Judd Apatow literally pushed Hollywood to save Kodak from going out of business.

I think the aggressive moves he's making here are an attempt to prove the viability of the traditional theatrical model and keep it 'somewhat' alive-- keep a precedent there for it. End of the day, Hollywood responds to the bottom line. If he's able to demonstrate that a movie like this can do well at the box office over a longer period, then home release, THEN ultimately at the end of the line be available on streaming and proves it in the numbers, what would be the counter business argument? This isn't about streaming = bad. This is about, why are are we in such a rush to devalue the idea of what a movie is? I feel like there is room here for everyone to have their cake and eat it too.

The truth is we still don't know what the end result of the streaming wars are going to be. It could all implode. Is it going to be sustainable in the long run? Who will the winners and losers be? We don't know the answers at this point.

 

[-Arya-]

Nolan hasn’t impressed me since Inception. I hope I can love one of his films again.

 

[shauner111]

This is going to bomb.

 

[BatLobster]

This is going to bomb.

Quite right.

 

[NotNickFury]

Talking about Nolan's work, I still need to see Memento...and finish The Prestige.

 

[DarkKnight88]

Sometimes I wonder why people are champions of the studio over the filmmaker. So what if he has demands? How does it affect you? Don’t we want filmmakers to push their passion. Some I feel only want either indie low budget or big budget comic book movies. As if there isn’t so much more that can be done.

This “people’s tastes have changed”. No, they take what you give them. But they’ll also adapt to what you give them. You don’t have to always give in to the lowest possible denominator. People don’t really know what they want until it happens. Studios only want to follow trends and algorithms until it implodes on themselves. I’ll bet on long term artists who’ve proven themselves over what’s hot in the moment.

 

[Gothamsknight]

Inception was great. Tenet and Interstellar were not.

Or, you know, that's just your opinion. Tenet was mixed for a lot of people but Interstellar was loved by the majority of the GA, even more than by the critics.

 

[Gothamsknight]

Sometimes I wonder why people are champions of the studio over the filmmaker. So what if he has demands? How does it affect you? Don’t we want filmmakers to push their passion. Some I feel only want either indie low budget or big budget comic book movies. As if there isn’t so much more that can be done.

This “people’s tastes have changed”. No, they take what you give them. But they’ll also adapt to what you give them. You don’t have to always give in to the lowest possible denominator. People don’t really know what they want until it happens. Studios only want to follow trends and algorithms until it implodes on themselves. I’ll bet on long term artists who’ve proven themselves over what’s hot in the moment.

I think, from what I've seen, there's layers to why people are annoyed by the "filmmaker" over the studio. The anti theatrical experience people seem to really dislike Nolan and Denis villeneuve lately because they champion going to the cinema. Accusing Nolan and others of not being sympathetic to the pandemic is pretty ignorant, but regardless, it's really about the fact that they don't like the cinema experience and would love for the streaming and theater same day stuff to continue even if it meant the movie losing money. It's an example of "I want what I want and **** everything else".

on the film itself side of things, I think todays audiences are, unfortunately, looking for every movie to give them a sort of "MCU" type experience. I used to not think that was the case, but in the past few years I've seen movies that are genuinely original and good being called crap just because it requires thought. Blade Runner 2049, The VVitch, and films like that I've seen get called "boring and pretentious" just for being different. I don't think the entire GA is like this, but the amount of praise something like Shang-Chi gets, which, let's be real, is nothing more than an enjoyable 2 hours, really makes me question the future of original movies.

 

[DarkKnight88]

But you know, just before the pandemic hit, 1917 and Joker both were huge blockbusters. And I wouldn’t necessarily call them “mainstream” in the traditional sense. They were certainly not films the studios think people want.

Again, I think sometimes some things will break through. Sometimes the audience doesn’t have a clue until they see it. That’s the fun of movies!

 

[BatLobster]

@DarkKnight88 very well said!

The trend I'm seeing in a lot movie fans to side with studios over filmmakers these days is really disheartening to me.

People should realize that the things Nolan is fighting for aren't just what he selfishly wants for himself (although of course, he does). It's what a lot of the filmmakers we love want. He is trying to use whatever industry clout he has while he still has it. Unless all filmmakers are the villains now, I can't keep up with the narrative anymore.

If it fails, it fails, but I don't get pouncing on the guy for trying. We live in an era where there are so many options for entertainment. If you're a person who loves streaming, you're in heaven. But I've yet to hear a sound business argument as to why the traditional theatrical model experience should just die for no good reason. Sure, if you're a person who doesn't like going to the movies or finds it too expensive- that's fine. That's your right as a consumer.

But people still do like going to the movies. Free Guy and Shang-Chi are proving that. And I'm willing to bet that the better things get wit the pandemic, there will be more opportunities for all sorts of movies to do well if they're given the chance to.

In 2019, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood made $374 million at the box office. That's INCREDIBLE for a movie of that type. Think of the gigantic missed opportunity there if that had been a straight to Netflix film. And yes, good call on Joker and 1917 too. Box office was roaring before the pandemic hit. And things are finally in a cool place with it to be a lot more affordable with the theater subscription model.

 

[Gothamsknight]

But you know, just before the pandemic hit, 1917 and Joker both were huge blockbusters. And I wouldn’t necessarily call them “mainstream” in the traditional sense. They were certainly not films the studios think people want.

Again, I think sometimes some things will break through. Sometimes the audience doesn’t have a clue until they see it. That’s the fun of movies!

Absolutely, but that's what hype is for. Building hype to get people to go to the cinema to experience these kinds of movies. Though, with Joker, people instantly were interested once they knew the film was actually about one of the most popular villains in history, so that certainly helped. But 1917 is an even better example. I do hope we get more stuff like that.

 

[GothamCity]

From sources the title will be

'Mind Blown'

 

[weezerspider]

Once Upon A Time In Hollywood was very successful without even playing in China in 2019. Nolan’s had better box office success overall than Tarantino. A Christopher Nolan film will definitely have people seeing it three or four weeks into a theatrical release. When you compare Tenet’s BO numbers which was released PRE-VACCINE with a lot of the stuff released since, it’s very impressive. There are only a handful of directors who can get away with doing it and he absolutely is one of them.

People mad at Nolan, Villenueve etc are so lame lol

 

[Detective Conan]

 

[weezerspider]

Universal agreed to his terms. Good for him. We need the few directors who actually have the weight to have control of their projects to have exactly that.

 

[Mysteryman]

Quite right.

Thanks for the LAUGH!

 

[BatLobster]

I think this is exactly the type of movie to support the argument for a longer theatrical window. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood opened to a $40 million opening weekend and ended up grossing $374 million worldwide over the course of several months. The term "box office legs" ring a bell for anyone?

You completely kneecap the possibility of that kind of thing happening by only allowing a film to play in theaters for a month. I just don't understand the position that a movie needs to be on a streaming service ASAP. I mean, if you don't want to see a movie in theaters but are curious enough to check it out at home, then you just wait. That's how it always was.

I'm glad that Universal seems to be a studio that's embracing the best of both worlds. A real shame WB can't be one of the studios leading the charge on this.

 

[shauner111]

I’m all for the creative control part obviously but...NO other movies for 3 weeks before/after his boring biopic that’s gonna bomb? And it will bomb make no mistake (unless he gets a huge star to lead it). 100 day theatrical window he needs to be humbled.