The Great Gatsby movie

So if WB capped its investment at whatever amount it was willing to spend on shooting this movie, and third-party investors came up with the rest of the money, how does the money invested by the third-party investors count against WB's bottom line? Wouldn't that tactic by WB reduce the amount of risk WB is exposed to, and thereby reduce the amount the picture has to gross in order for WB to break even? Or did WB direct Luhrmann to go raise money from outside investors and promise them that they would get paid back first before WB ever sees any money from ticket sales? Your scenario makes this sound like the same sort of "scam" that many people accused the Veronica Mars Kickstarter project of being, where the studio is exposed to less risk and capital investment, but gets first crack at all of the profits and upside. In which case, again, whatever cost overruns you're claiming happened here don't affect WB's bottom line at all, and the film doesn't need to gross $450 million in order for WB to break even.

 

I agree that the leads are entirely too old for the material. Luhrmann should have done a spin on it, and made the characters younger than those in the book. Of course, the film then would have to have been made in 1987.

 

I think would've been a lot weirder, because part of the mystery of the novel is that Gatsby claims to have travelled the world, been decorated in WWI for heroism in battle, and all kinds of other stuff. That wouldn't make a lot of sense coming from a kid.

I don't have that much trouble with the actors' ages -- I think you can sorta/kinda buy them for being 30-ish. But, I think they are kinda wispy actors in general, both more similar than different, which I think works against the story. No question, that's a totally subjective call, and both actors have been great in other roles before.

 

Gatsby could have traveled the world as part of Bieber's entourage and been decorated for Call of Duty play on the X-box. Word.

 

Baz Luhrman has had a weird career. Can't believe its been 12 years since Moulin Rouge. Time flys.

The Great Gatsby

2012​

Hard Chic (short)

2012​

Naïf Chic (short)

2012​

Schiaparelli & Prada: Impossible Conversations (short)

2012​

The Classical Body (short)

2012​

The Exotic Body (short)

2012​

The Surreal Body (short)

2012​

Ugly Chic (short)

2012​

Waist Up/Waist Down (short)

2008​

Australia

2001​

Moulin Rouge!

1996​

Romeo + Juliet

1992​

Strictly Ballroom

 

These are questions for accountants. Don't forget another WB film that never broke even, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix:

http://www.deadline.com/2010/07/stu...ause-of-warner-bros-phony-baloney-accounting/

Cost $200M... made $900M... still hasn't made a profit. Hollywood math.

I don't dispute there are at least five different kinds of income: unadjusted gross, film rentals, defined gross, defined proceeds, and net profit. But the 2.5X negative cost formula is very standard nowadays for a film to break even. Even if we use the original $127M cost, they'll have to hit about $320M to break even. But I'd be surprised if it ever goes that high.

If they could've made this film for significantly less money, then they might've had a chance. I'd be surprised if this happens, but again, I don't have a dog in this fight -- I don't care that much either way. I do look forward to seeing it, but I'll probably wait until the major critics weigh in; if it's real bad, then I'll wait for a screening or even DVD.

BTW, I caught a trailer for Lone Ranger this afternoon at a theater, and crickets played in the audience. Not a lot of audience excitement for this one.

 

Tres Chic!

 

Again, by your theory, the cost overruns occurred after whatever point WB put its foot down and said "enough," which would suggest that WB is insulated from whatever amount of spending it perceived to be too much to recoup at the box office.

 

Unless the movie flops... I don't think there's ever a guarantee that anybody is "insulated" from an unprofitable film. The trick (as the above WB documents show) is that WB pulls their own money from dollar one, plus they charge interest on the budget for the entire time, forever, until it hits the magic profit point. So they could say, "well, sure, our internal costs are covered, but you can clearly see here in the statements that this film never made a profit!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

I don't think Gatsby will necessarily be a bomb on the order of John Carter or Battleship or Cowboys & Aliens, but I would be very surprised if it's successful. I will give Baz Luhrmann props for doing a movie that's different from anything else out there, and it takes courage to do stuff like that nowadays.

Speaking of profits: when I worked on a bunch of the old Star Trek shows in the 1980s, a mid-level Paramount exec told me, "take all the time you want to master these shows. It all gets charged back to the 1960s budget. This show will never break even!" And he laughed. Yikes...

 

Early review:

http://tomshone.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/review-great-gatsby-d-luhrmann.html?spref=tw

 

Baz Luhrmann makes good, long form, music videos, not movies.

In essence, this is what he does, and you can't, really, make a bad music video, if the music is good.

 

Backing away from " this might go down as one of the biggest trainwrecks in film history" and "The Great Gatsby will be the bomb of the year", are we?

 

I fear that Luhrman this time , has bitten off far too much for him to handle and digest. In the past, he was noted for applying his own special brand of style on projects like Moulin Rouge, Romeo & Juliet , Australia...and let's not forget operas (he did) like Puccini's La Boheme and Britten's A Misdsummer's Night Dream. Here with Great Gatsby, he is dealing with much more fragile material. Material that to properly succeed : needs greater degrees of insight and illumination while respecting the base material, the period it was set in, and the then prevailing social attitudes and forces at play.
Looking back at Luhrman's previous directional "methodology", I will be surprised if for a change, he is capable of a personal needed re- direction. By instead, using a good deal of steadier, somewhat introspective insight which would be of immense benefit. Just hearing about use of 3-D and Hip Hop music....and I thought "Here goes Luhrman off again, up his manic 'inspirational tree' , with one of his 95% style / 5% content recipes -all over again. He is now the 'go - to' Tarantino type.....for historical period romance themed films.
Luhrman reminds me of someone that wants to be famously noticed "if finally for nothing else -but for being SEEN as radically crazily different"
Lastingly innovative? Forget that!
I would especially pity the people he goes touting for money for his projects. No doubt he bedazzles...and as they would probably say " could talk the leg off a chair".

 

So how exactly is Gatsby "more fragile" source material than, say, Romeo and Juliet?

While I'm in the minority here on this forum, I liked Moulin Rouge, and I liked its over-the-top visual style. I like the previews I've seen for Gatsby so far. I think Luhrmann's style is well-suited for the source material, which is of course set in the Roaring Twenties, an era that has been noted for its over-the-top excess, just as Luhrmann's work has been. I'm particularly interested to see 3-D applied to something other than a superhero or giant robot movie. You can certainly accuse Luhrmann of being pretentious, but, to read his statements about why he shot in 3-D, it sounds like he had an artistic vision in mind. Whethere he succesfully realized that vision, we'll have to wait and see and judge for ourselves.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/cinemacon-great-gatsby-director-baz-440562

http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...-sneaks-great-gatsby-20130428,0,4098568.story

 

It might be! Let's wait and see. We'll know pretty soon.

He filmed several sequences in long takes, as if "The Great Gatsby" were live theater, and shot it in 3-D; the stereoscopic technology, Luhrmann said, heightens the film's emotions, moving the audience from spectators to participants. "It was our poetic glue," the director said of 3-D.

I wonder if he's been sniffing the poetic glue...

 

Methinks, Luhrman has also had one too many large cups of his own bathwater. Can we imagine some actor on the set , saying before a take: "Mr B. (de La) Luhrman, I am ready to do one of those great magnificent long meaingful takes , you want."

 

I expected more from you than a know-nothing "artsy fartsy is bad" response, Vid. I'm surprised that you were surprised that Ted was a hit if that's how you view movies.

 

I thought Ted would do well, but not $550M well! I figured, "eh, it'll be a decent-sized hit." Was very surprised that it went through the roof, because I thought for sure most people would think it was too over-the-top foul and crazy. I liked it a lot, and I'm sure the studio and MacFarland would've been fine with it just making $200M or so.

I always say, "I can show no higher admiration for a film than to buy it on home video," and I bought the Blu-ray for Ted. I tend to doubt that I'll do that for Gatsby. (I did the mastering for Paramount's Gatsby, and I didn't enjoy having to watch that, even while getting paid for it.)

BTW, I forgot that the new Gatsby is 140 minutes long, which is another strike against it, in my opinion. Reviews on the movie are due out in just a few days, after the studio embargo.

 

I don't care if movies make money or not, I just want to see a well-made film, and I don't know, I've liked the trailers of this that I've seen. I'm re-reading the novel right now and it's a landmark novel. . . . I'm not going to judge this before I've seen the film. For me it has potential to be a good one.

 

I couldn't believe Dave Letterman sounded like he thought this thing was good,unless I am missing something and he's totally sold out Toby's pre written answer to why Jazz Z's score fits ,was just plain insane

 

I don't need to see anymore of it to know I hate it ,start with the director,add a Star I don't care much about ,add rap ....ugh!

 

I figure there will be hot chicks in flapper costumes dancing. I'll watch it.

 

Never, NEVER underestimate the box office drawing power of Sam J. Jones.

 

YES! Flapper dresses show off every curve, and with their super-short hemlines and plunging necklines, WATCH OUT!



Oh wait...it's a sack dress with fringes. Nevermind.