 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ron -
I was being deliberately smart-ass in my remarks, and I wasn't picking on anyone in particular. THE TREE OF LIFE is a film that means a great deal to me, so I get a little testy on how much it gets pissed on. I know that many people have sincerely given it a chance and have gotten little out of it, but it just seems that others dismiss it because of its "visual poem" style, its "God talk," or simply feel that it should be re-edited.
It's a film that I hope joins other classics such as "2001," "Citizen Kane," "Andrei Rublev," "Persona," "Sunrise," "Seven Samurai" and other generally agreed upon greats on "Best Films of All Time" lists rather than being dismissed as pretentious twaddle.
It brings up the question of just what are the greatest films of the still young 21st century so far? Will film art grow or become extinct? Does anyone care anymore about cinema as a form of self-expression or is that a luxury that can't be afforded in an age of making soley "safe" box-office hits?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark R.Y.:
Well, I sincerely wanted to like that film -- I've long been a fan of Brad Pitt and have most of his movies on DVD and several on Blu-ray, and have enjoyed Terrence Mallick since "Badlands" with Martin Sheen and Sissy Spacek. But it was simply an ordeal, sitting there in front of my 55 inch Samsung (yes, it should properly be seen in a big theatre). But, for me, I've been knocked out by tons of movies seen on that screen, so that shouldn't have been a factor, but, in the end, I just couldn't get into it. Never came close. Go to the reviews at Netflix and see how polarized people were by it, with some wanting to give it more than the maximum of 5 stars and others not wanting to give it even the minimum of 1. And the viewer reviews are emotionally at both ends of the scale too -- the movie engenders such passion! If you wrote me that you hated "Shakespeare In Love" and "King Rat," I'd probably feel that you just didn't give them a chance, and you probably feel that way about many of us who had our knee-jerk negative reaction to Mallick's film. I admit that, visually, it is sometimes gorgeous, but gorgeous images do not a movie make. Sorry.
And since this is a movie music site, let me say that I was pleased that in his credits for "Badlands," Mallick gave credit to Carl Orff for essentially the same piece that Hans Zimmer appropriated for his score for "True Romance" and which has even been included on some best-of Hans Zimmer compilations. No, it's by Carl Orff, and here is how it reads from the version I downloaded from an online music store: "Orff: Vier Stücke für Xylophon: Gassenhauer nach Hans Neusiedler (1536) für Sopran-, Altxylophon, Castagnetten, kleine Trommel, Schellentrommel und Pauken, Musik für Kinder III, Nr. 15, 1952." I usually shorten it to just "Vier Stücke für Xylophon," and it was not composed by Hans Zimmer. Sorry for this digression!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To gone:
Excellent! You wrote precisely what I wish I had written, that one needn't rip apart those who, for whatever reason, don't share our love for a movie (or anything else). I know very well that there are movies that I adore that others can't stand, or movies that I can't stand but which are adored by others, and wouldn't want to rip anyone apart for their tastes. "Tree of Life" is one such movie, polarizing most viewers, as we've seen here and elsewhere. But how did it do at the box office? Because that's an important factor too, although I've loved movies that lost a lot of money at the box office (and hated some that were commercial blockbusters!). Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Sep 30, 2013 - 12:40 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
To gone:
Excellent! You wrote precisely what I wish I had written, that one needn't rip apart those who, for whatever reason, don't share our love for a movie (or anything else). I know very well that there are movies that I adore that others can't stand, or movies that I can't stand but which are adored by others, and wouldn't want to rip anyone apart for their tastes. "Tree of Life" is one such movie, polarizing most viewers, as we've seen here and elsewhere. But how did it do at the box office? Because that's an important factor too, although I've loved movies that lost a lot of money at the box office (and hated some that were commercial blockbusters!). Thanks.
$54 million worldwide on $32 production. With the economics of distribution and marketing this means that the film never got out of the red. That is it has to make about 2.5 times the cost to cover the take of exhibition and non specified marketing costs. So it needed around $80 million to break even, and it was way short of that. Not sure why, or how he gets financed, in money terms this is a loser.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do we agree at least that Brad Pitt was superb/?
A complex character given the nuance that was reqquired
brm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To: gone:
That means that there was a very limited interest in Mallick's "Tree of Life" around the globe, so I wish some of those who are so passionate about it would stop bashing those of us who found it impenetrable and perhaps even pretentious. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
To: gone:
That means that there was a very limited interest in Mallick's "Tree of Life" around the globe, so I wish some of those who are so passionate about it would stop bashing those of us who found it impenetrable and perhaps even pretentious. Thank you.
well it grossed 10 million US, so it quadrupled its gross with overseas exhibition.
SInce it didn't waste alot of money on promotion (or FYC full-page ads in the NYT for example)
Id say it is a "recouper"
brm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 1, 2013 - 2:21 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
To: gone:
That means that there was a very limited interest in Mallick's "Tree of Life" around the globe, so I wish some of those who are so passionate about it would stop bashing those of us who found it impenetrable and perhaps even pretentious. Thank you.
well it grossed 10 million US, so it quadrupled its gross with overseas exhibition.
SInce it didn't waste alot of money on promotion (or FYC full-page ads in the NYT for example)
Id say it is a "recouper"
brm
Well that is a nice idea, but the real world of film finance is not that kind, distributors here, and more overseas, take a large portion of the box office. This production cost is just that, not marketing. So even if they only needed a 2* factor production the global take was well short of that.
This picture went down as a money loser, no doubt.
Pictures are often thought as financially successful that are money losers, and the studios are not really interested in correcting this idea, naturally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
To: gone:
That means that there was a very limited interest in Mallick's "Tree of Life" around the globe, so I wish some of those who are so passionate about it would stop bashing those of us who found it impenetrable and perhaps even pretentious. Thank you.
well it grossed 10 million US, so it quadrupled its gross with overseas exhibition.
SInce it didn't waste alot of money on promotion (or FYC full-page ads in the NYT for example)
Id say it is a "recouper"
brm
Well that is a nice idea, but the real world of film finance is not that kind, distributors here, and more overseas, take a large portion of the box office. This production cost is just that, not marketing. So even if they only needed a 2* factor production the global take was well short of that.
This picture went down as a money loser, no doubt.
Pictures are often thought as financially successful that are money losers, and the studios are not really interested in correcting this idea, naturally.
Not that it really matters since i didn't invest in it....
in time, with dvd sales and other ancillaries, it'l break even
brm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 1, 2013 - 2:34 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
To: gone:
That means that there was a very limited interest in Mallick's "Tree of Life" around the globe, so I wish some of those who are so passionate about it would stop bashing those of us who found it impenetrable and perhaps even pretentious. Thank you.
well it grossed 10 million US, so it quadrupled its gross with overseas exhibition.
SInce it didn't waste alot of money on promotion (or FYC full-page ads in the NYT for example)
Id say it is a "recouper"
brm
Well that is a nice idea, but the real world of film finance is not that kind, distributors here, and more overseas, take a large portion of the box office. This production cost is just that, not marketing. So even if they only needed a 2* factor production the global take was well short of that.
This picture went down as a money loser, no doubt.
Pictures are often thought as financially successful that are money losers, and the studios are not really interested in correcting this idea, naturally.
Not that it really matters since i didn't invest in it....
in time, with dvd sales and other ancillaries, it'l break even
brm
If it can make 15 to 20 million in post sales, yeah. I doubt copies of Tree of Life are really flying off the shelves at Walmart of Bestbuy though. I mean millions of dollars is a lot of DVD sales for what is basically a niche market art-house picture. But I wish it all the best for those that support the filmmaker.
But the profit potential on films has become absurd, and $32 million is rather expensive for an art picture. If he could work in the lower 10-15 million production cost that Woody Allen works in he would be just fine. Woody makes his films cheaper, and gets a larger audience too, which is remarkable for a rather artsy film maker.
People backing someone like Malick need to knock his budgets down to something realistic, it is doing him a favor in the long term.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This all seems like dodging the issue. What does a film's box office take have to do with its greatness? How well would many of the movies on the Sight & Sound or Arts & Faith "Best Films of All Time" polls fare as blockbuster moneymakers?
And which other films from 2000 to now along with The Tree of Life should be considered for future best-of-all-time lists and articles? I'm still exploring myself, but I would submit these as examples:
Yi Yi
Mulholland Dr.
Le fils
The Return
House of Sand and Fog
The Lives of Others
No Country for Old Men
Still Walking
The Master
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the Mood for Love
Excellent choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Not that it really matters since i didn't invest in it....
in time, with dvd sales and other ancillaries, it'l break even
brm
You're quite the optimist, but "Tree" is not going to sell so many DVDs and Blu-rays that it'll extricate itself from that deep river of red ink. Anyone who invested in "Tree of Life" lost their investment, plain and simple. And, as much as I hated that movie, that gives me no pleasure, because it'll affect investment in other ambitious films in the future, in effect spoiling it for other film. Too bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 2, 2013 - 5:15 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
Re: Not that it really matters since i didn't invest in it....
in time, with dvd sales and other ancillaries, it'l break even
brm
You're quite the optimist, but "Tree" is not going to sell so many DVDs and Blu-rays that it'll extricate itself from that deep river of red ink. Anyone who invested in "Tree of Life" lost their investment, plain and simple. And, as much as I hated that movie, that gives me no pleasure, because it'll affect investment in other ambitious films in the future, in effect spoiling it for other film. Too bad.
well put Ron.
When you hear stories of Malick doing lots of takes, and editing his pictures for years after they should be done, you realize that this is not a guy who should be given $30 million unless you do not plan on seeing it again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Not that it really matters since i didn't invest in it....
in time, with dvd sales and other ancillaries, it'l break even
brm
You're quite the optimist, but "Tree" is not going to sell so many DVDs and Blu-rays that it'll extricate itself from that deep river of red ink. Anyone who invested in "Tree of Life" lost their investment, plain and simple. And, as much as I hated that movie, that gives me no pleasure, because it'll affect investment in other ambitious films in the future, in effect spoiling it for other film. Too bad.
well put Ron.
When you hear stories of Malick doing lots of takes, and editing his pictures for years after they should be done, you realize that this is not a guy who should be given $30 million unless you do not plan on seeing it again.
The movie cost 30 million and grossed about 50 million.
Out of that lost however, it was nominated for dozens of awards and was on over 60 plus YEARS BEST list not three big academy award nominations [Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Cinematography].
Not bad for a 30 million dollar title.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
