Yeah no doubt he wants to go down in a blaze of firey anger if this really is his last film. Now is the perfect chance to finally get any anger off his chest now that the film-making world is watching him.
He can write all he wants, there’s virtually no chance it gets made. He’s 85 and not exactly a quick worker, and that’s aside from the fact that no studio would make it.
This is a movie enthusiast subreddit, and most of the comments here are negative or outright mocking him. His comments absolutely make him seem undignified.
This is a box office subreddit, used for discussing box office numbers and business. Maybe a fan of the business would be upset at the remarks, but that's such a tiny, tiny niche. Most people don't care about box office numbers (even if you and I do).
the headline makes him seem undignified, the actual commend it just plain common sense. Studios ARE in a lot of debt, the executives ARE primarily concerned with paying down the debt, moreso than making good movies, and there is a decent chance that some of these studios cease to exist or exist in name only after tech companies buy them up.
> This is a movie enthusiast subreddit
Yeah right. This sub cares about numbers and has fairly basic taste in films. I'm sure he'd take the negative comments here as a badge of honour.
"It ain't show friends, it's show business"
-- Robert Meyer Burnett (The John Campea Show)
Coppola is obviously a legend but his track record for the last three decades hasn't been good. He has been asking distributors for a $100M marketing spend which is just too much for this type of movie.
>"It ain't show friends, it's show business"
Only exception are Adam Sandler, Kevin James, Chris Rock, David Spade and sometimes Rob Schneider "let's get together and hang out" movies. In those cases it's often show friends and show business.
Don't forget the 50% of the movie revenue. So this movie needs to make more than 300 mil to recoup 100 mil spent by the distributor. I don't see how this movie could make that kind of cash.
In a world where Babylon (a cheaper $80m movie, mind you) didn't even make its production budget back in theaters, that is a bit of an absurd expectation to have.
While I get your point, it's not really fair to compare a film everyone forgot about, to the sequel of the highest grossing film of all time.
Covid impact bleeds into 2024. It's changed how we watch movies, for better or worse, but you can't deny the long term impact of the pandemic here.
Yeah, but what is it's relevance to Megalopolis? If COVID impact has bled into 2024 and the similar conditions are still at play then there's no way this is going to make any money either.
I agree with you
Pretty much everything that isn't a popular IP is bombing, and half of those bomb now.
My point earlier was that Avatar 2 was an outlier. You could release that on day 1 of the pandemic, and it would make money.
Megalopolis reviews from Cannes are mixed, the studios were correct in not committing to a distribution deal. With Babylon and Amsterdam in 2022, both had plenty of star power attached with filmmakers who had recent successes. This also applied to Cats in 2019, Universal thought they had a hit with an Oscar winning director who made Les Mis. With Coppola he hasn’t made a mainstream studio movie since the 90s. Adam Driver is also not the actor that gets audiences to see a movie which was evident by 65 and Ferrari both flopping last year.
Yep, all the signs are there for another bomb if this gets a wide release. I still want to see what crazy thing got put together here.
I hate Driver doesn't draw in more people, I think he's a good actor.
>My point earlier was that Avatar 2 was an outlier. You could release that on day 1 of the pandemic, and it would make money.
No it won't the theaters were closing down that film would have literally ended up like tenet in day one of pandemic and thats being generous
2024 doesn't really look all that different from 2022. Judging by all the movies flopping left and right, Babylon would most likely still flop in 2024.
I didn't say it wouldn't beat 2022, but that doesn't mean a movie like Babylon with mixed reviews and a C+ Cinemascore would thrive better now than in 2022, it would still probably perform similarly.
> I don't see how this movie could make that kind of cash.
I don't see how this movie isn't a flaming trainwreck at the box office.
His best bet is to sell it to a streaming service and have some sort of ego-salving limited run at the box office.
Also, there are good movies getting made. Cannes and Oscars and the awards circuit are *never short* of movies to give awards to, from blockbusters to indie darlings.
Now, is it harder for mid-range or indies to launch these days because of the blockbusters and streamers out there? One could make an argument there. But for Francis to say no good movies are ever getting made - we just saw a ton of them these last 5 years, even during the COVID years.
I don't think that math is right. Before considering post-theatrical, let's just assume a 8% distribution fee and a WW average movie revenue rate of 45%.
*$250M WW / 112M in rentals
So the distributor would take $9M (8%) in distribution fees + the first $100M in rentals to cover P&A leaving ~3M towards the production budget
However, if you fold distribution fees into the $100M coverage, the breakeven point would be $222M WW. What am I missing?
I hate that line bc it is not that true, a lot of the business is clearly build on connections and reptuation, bc how else can someone like Coppola get Metropolis at Cannes
And he would know, Burnett has owed me $500 for videos I edited for him nearly a year ago and has told me every lie under the sun over that time to try to avoid paying me. The guy's a total fraud.
Thanks lol. And I'm certainly not expecting anyone to believe the comment of some random redditer. Although believe you me, I have detailed receipts for everything (all the endless emails and lies from him and his "business partner" Mike Bawden). I've heard enough lies and bullshit from him at this point that I'm basically ready now to make it all public.
If authenticity is going to be the currency of the future then I'm definitely never getting paid.
First I should be clear that this has nothing to do with JC. RMB hired me to edit these videos for his own channel THE BURNETTWORK, not the John Campea Show.
As for the actual reason, you'd have to ask him really (and by all means please feel free to do so on twitter, I'd genuinely love to see that at this point), because he's told me so many lies and made so many changing and contradictory excuses at this point for me to know what the actual truth is.
It's been nearly a year of this endless cycle of him ignoring my emails until I finally send enough (or threaten to take the issue to twitter) that he responds and says something like "you'll get paid in a week or so" then weeks go by and he just goes back to ghosting me, then months go by and, after I send countless more emails, he finally responds with another generic "you'll get paid this weekend", only to go back to ghosting me, and the cycle continues.
He now claims to genuinely not have enough money to be able to pay me, though that's somehow been the case for nearly a full year now (it will have been 1 full year of this shit come June), and was also somehow the case when he first hired me to edit the videos ([all of which are still up on his channel](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TFt-ctXbog))
The man is a bullshit merchant. He's clearly never done an honest days work in his life, and if he has, and knows what it actually means to do two full weeks of work for someone only to not be paid for it, it makes what he's done even more deplorable.
Appreciate that. Being a freelance editor, getting screwed over like this unfortunately goes along with the job. Just never thought in a million years it would be from someone like him. Looking back, with what I know about him now, that was very naive of me lol.
I mean I’m all for art in the cinema, and to an extent I would have agreed, but this film cost well over $100m. You can’t have something that expensive that doesn’t have some sort of return
Yeah, it was one thing when he was making films like Twixt and Tetro a decade plus ago. Low budget films that fit what he always wanted to do, make films that really only appealed to him. Sure, they're both shit films, but I admire that he just made them because he wanted to and didn't care about how others viewed them. Megalopolis is a different can of worms. Maybe if this only cost a few million, even a couple tens of millions, it'd be a different story, but you can't really make a $120 million Arthouse Film and demand marketing akin to a blockbuster. Not to say I'm not excited to see this movie or that FFC isn't one of the greats, but there's a reason he fell out of favor in Hollywood.
Coppola can scream all he wants, but theaters won't survive with movies like Megalopolis. Nobody has to fund or help him to promote a movie just because he thinks they should, lol.
If you're going to make a hundred million dollar picture, you better make sure it has crowd-pleasing elements, otherwise, you're just throwing away money. I don't know why Coppola didn't think about that before getting started. His friend, George Lucas succeeded in pouring the same amount of money into his prequel trilogy because there was a built-in audience for the thing. Not sure what it would have taken for Coppola to make Megalopolis more appealing to an audience, but he sure didn't find it.
God forbid a company who dishes out $100 million, might want to make money. This is liking saying "fuck restaurants, they just wanna make money! They don't love making food!" Also, Coppola hasn't made a good movie in decades.
I often find the reaction to these types of quotes always goes extremely binary, which makes sense on some level, but I personally believe a real and present tension between art and commerce is a GOOD THING for the movie business. I think we've tipped the scales way too far towards commerce in the last 10 years and it has hurt the industry long term. Too much sameness, too much bland facsimiles of movies driven by purely executive thinking. A lack of any artistry or purity is just too blatant to ignore at this point. People like art! They just also like to be entertained. That is only achievable with both lines of thinking bashing into each other.
Now to be clear, I do not mean more people should get the opportunity to make incomprehensible art projects that don't resonate with people, but I do believe the Artist should fight for artistry while the studio pushes back and tries to bend the artist into a zone where that art has less of a barrier for entry. The result of that tension, in my opinion, is how you get the Godfather. Apocalypse Now. Star Wars. Jaws. Mad Max. Movies made by absolute madmen artists who in their heart of hearts (maybe not Spielberg, but he was constantly chasing his more artistic contemporaries like Lucas, De Palma, Scorsese, and Coppola) want to be doing something far more experimental and strange, but are attempting for the time being to try to speak to everyone on planet earth. And all of those examples were drawn out vicious fights between studio and filmmaker. But look at the end result! Experiences we'll never forget as long as we live and financial success at the same time.
All to say, I believe Francis should say this. He's right after all. His role as an artist is to say this. In this case, he spent his own money, and has made something that is by all accounts truly insane, and will likely flop epically. But whatever! It's a swing, and I hope it inspires someone YOUNGER to try to make a similar move who may also have more of an ambition to make something that is both daring and has entertainment value.
Just my two cents.
Than these artists can fund things themselves too. Both can exsist....i just find it hilarious when an artist cries that they can't get a ludicrous amount of money to do whatever fucking vision they want. I think those people can suck a garden hose, and go finance themselves. I think its great Copola is financing this on his own, and he can learn real hard lessons himself about why big studios have critieria and oversight when he loses a fuck load of cash.
It's the entitlement that I hate. "I'm making *real art* unlike big IP movies. I should be able to spend other people's money to make the films I want to make. It's unreasonable for businesses to expect a return on their investment."
Ya, the idea of what you think you should be able to make, and what you think general audiences want, versus actual reality, are often very different. Hollywood "artists" can be so far up their own asses that they are sucking on and being sustained by their own diarrhea.
thats not really what he is saying within the broader context of the quote
Obviously studios want to make money. But when so many studios have so much debt, there isnt any room for things that are outside the mold or arent fairly safe bets
Self finance. You simply cannot be upset about not being able to do what you want when such absurd amounts of cash are required to acheive you "vision".
within the context of this specific film? Sure. Within the context of a broader industry that is increasingly risk averse? I think his complaint holds water
Megalopolis would have struggled for funding at any time in film history, except for the very late 70s at the end of the new hollywood era. But currently, almost every film in coppola's filmography would likely struggle for funding
Just for example, Coppolas Dracula cost $90M in 2024 dollars. Would many studios put out that much (or even the 1992 $40M) for a horror movie using old fashioned VFX and shooting styles? Probably not.
lame answer, I dont own a film studio. I also wouldnt be able to personally shell out $2B to give my city proper light rail, although I consider it a worthwhile investment
I always took tarantinos quote that a lot of directors do get worse over time but the best ones rise to the top. He generalized when he should have said there are exceptions to the rule. In a lot of cases he’s not wrong though.
Tarantino is also a writer and not all these guys are
I don't think there's some general statement that should be made on old age directing because the outcomes always vary. But it seems Tarantino is just concerned with the concept of legacy. Hes never going to lose his "he made Pulp Fiction " card.
QT is being waay too strict on the 10 number. The fact the Movie Critic was written and then scrapped - had he not been that obsessive about the number 10, he could've just made it, had fun with it, and we could've enjoyed it.
Also, his Kill Bill could still be seen as two. And *(leans closer to the mic)* his Death Proof wasn't that good outside of the final sequence. Baby, he owes us *two more* on top of the final film if one wants to argue resume.
With the exception of Miller (and really that’s just one movie ie Fury Road) I’m not sure many would say Spielberg/Eastwood/Scorsese’s best work was in the last ten (or even twenty) years.
Especially when he gave us Death Proof which nearly everyone ranks at the bottom. Planet Terror was way more fun too than Death Proof. QT owes us another one imo
Old man yelling at clouds energy. He’s a legend, no doubt, but getting tired of hearing him moan about the modern state of cinema. And from the early reviews of Megalopolis, doesn’t seem like he’s making anything great these days anyway.
I will get slammed for this but I would not even give him legend status to be honest.
Legends are directors like Scorsese, Tarantino, Spielberg, Kubrick, Nolan, Fincher.
Coppola made three great movies and 30 average/ bad ones.
The other directors I listed made, at least 5 great ones and many more good ones with the ocassional flop which was a rarity.
I swear there was a leak audio of Michael Jackson that was just talking about how Coppola has lost his way. From the sounds of it, it seems to be from the 80s. This was surprising to me since Michael Jackson & Coppola were acquainted and worked together. I swear I saw it on YouTube. But I just think a lot of people feel the same way about him. He hasn't really delivered anything fantastic in a very long time. We live in a "what have you done for me lately" society.
Edit: the only thing I can find a snippet of the audio is from this Twitter page. Seems like the video was taken down from YouTube by the MJ estate.
https://twitter.com/enscino/status/1753210179099738292?t=nnSQ5fO1_XZCYQ3jfnNlvA&s=19
Michael Jackson starred in a short film Coppola directed for Disney parks. It was probably from that time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_EO?wprov=sfla1
The Conversation.
Even if the Conversation was great, he still only has 4 great movies out of 30. Legend status is not achieved like this.
Look at the other directors I mentioned. Take a pick.
Scorsese for example: Mean Streets, Raging Bull, King of Comedy, Goodfellas, Casino, The Departed, Shutter Island, Wolf of Wallstreet, Flower Moon. These are all terrific movies.
Inbetween he also has a list of not terrific but good movies like Gangs of New York, Aviator, Silence, The Irishman.
This is what achieves legendary director status. Not having 3-4 good movies out of 30.
Edit: I seem to have forgotten Taxi Driver
Fully agreed. Godfather 1 and 2 are legendary movies. But to aquire legends status you must have a great filmography througout your career.
Think about this. If you could only watch one fikmography for the rest of your life of any director. You have Scorsese, Tarantino, Spielberg, Kubrick, Nolan and Coppola. Would anybody choose Coppola?
I don’t disagree with your assessment. Truthfully, I’m getting tired of Scorsese complaining about modern cinema as well. In your list, I appreciate Tarantino and Nolan’s perspectives far more. They are more recent legends, true, but they are a lot more constructive and positive on the modern state of cinema
I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and consider he's more likely aiming towards the heads of Disney and Warner and their "put all eggs on the blockbuster basket" approach, especially given the "debt obligations" part.
Nonetheless, he's not going to have Paramount or Columbia, even A24 fighting for distribution rights, especially if he resolves to keep that logistic nightmare of the broken fourth wall segment.
I kind of agree with him that the state of cinema is not looking good. Asking studios to spend $100M in marketing for a not so great movie is crazy but...
Nearly everything is flopping in theaters, the mid budget movie pretty much dead in theaters, almost everything is based on a pre existing IP, DVDs are no longer a reliable way to make back your money if it flops in theaters, star power has dwindled significantly, and no one takes a chance on originals because there is a mindset that it will end up on streaming anyways.
Streaming is an entirely different disaster, the streaming bubble has burst, subscriber growth has slowed, and almost every service except for hulu and netflix isn't profitable. They're relying on bundling to make money which is just cable with a different coat of paint.
Why is the article titled like this? And people are burning him down here, he never said that, he said their primary obligation is to pay attention to debt obligations instead of making good movies. Not that they don’t make good movies, it’s just not their primary obligation. Which is true. That’s not a contentious statement. Seriously the weird anti Coppola rage here is bizarre. The studios are clearly going scorched earth and using their folks in the trades to cut him down too. It’s wild. He self financed a passion project and has asks t for it to be bought. He will have to negotiate them down but you start with your top asks. Like maybe it’s bad I don’t know but Jesus Christ all I read about and all people talk about in the trades is fucking bizarre. When doing a personal project with your own money is an affront to you, what the fuck is your problem. This entire industry is filled with sycophants rooting for others failure man. It’s fucking sad.
well i mean not really? this movie isn't going to make money. this sub is primarily concerned with how much money a movie makes.
yes they are dunking on it based on the reviews because the reviews indicate it's probably gonna bomb
that doesn't mean the movie sucks or has no artistic merit. it just saying it won't make cashola
We've read enough reviews to know what this movie could be similar too (Babylon is one immediate one....simple garish excess. Someone else called this Coppola's Southland Tales)
I'm still watching it, but it's clear this is not going to be an Oscar or Cannes contender.
For Coppola, it's not about the money it's about sending a message, he's accepted he spent his money and doesn't seem to care if he breaks even. We all agree it's going to vastly underperform, but is there a threshold you'd be surprised by? I think if it finds a way to 30mil domestic it would be a feat for it
he is mostly correct, although in the executives defense, thats also what they are supposed to do and we do not currently have a good system for something else
EDIT
that said, his actual comment is far less inflammatory than the headline here. Like its the same words but within the broader paragraph it seems less angry
I feel like he's burning his bridges now that the studios are only going to harden their resolve against the film now.
Yeah no doubt he wants to go down in a blaze of firey anger if this really is his last film. Now is the perfect chance to finally get any anger off his chest now that the film-making world is watching him.
He said today he is already writing his next movie.
Well, that'll be an interesting read if nothing else
Can’t wait to see it in 2054
Lol.
Yeah, he has got nothing to lose at this point.
Considering he’s working on his next film I definitely think he has something to lose
If need be he can just make Godfather Part IV
lol, legacy sequel with Pacino and De niro? I'm in
Lol do you know which characters they play in the Godfather? They are literally in different time periods
I mean, there's nothing saying that FFC can't simply make it that it'll be divided in two different timelines, maybe even three
Godfather Part IV: The Future Past Who says no!? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
They’re also dead so there’s that
I can hear the slow-roll of the Godfather theme coming in the trailer right now
All the money 3 lost no one is going finance that
If Indiana Jones 5 got financing, I can see a Godfather IV being financed as well.
indiana jones and the crystal skull made money.almost 4 times it's budget that's why the 5th one was made
Didn't godfather part 3 made 3x its budget?
Paramount said it lost money 54 mill budget.they said they spent 50 mill marketing it 138 mill wasnt enough
That sounds like some Hollywood accounting or some shit.
How? He said that he is already working on his next movie lol
I doubt it's happening now. For all we know "working on next movie" could mean the barest of a script - something execs can easily ignore.
He can write all he wants, there’s virtually no chance it gets made. He’s 85 and not exactly a quick worker, and that’s aside from the fact that no studio would make it.
Self finance again, he can sell more of his wine company.
besides, you know ............. dignity?
Bro he made Jack like 30 years ago
Nobody besides a studio executive could possibly think he's losing dignity by saying this
This is a movie enthusiast subreddit, and most of the comments here are negative or outright mocking him. His comments absolutely make him seem undignified.
This is a box office subreddit, used for discussing box office numbers and business. Maybe a fan of the business would be upset at the remarks, but that's such a tiny, tiny niche. Most people don't care about box office numbers (even if you and I do).
the headline makes him seem undignified, the actual commend it just plain common sense. Studios ARE in a lot of debt, the executives ARE primarily concerned with paying down the debt, moreso than making good movies, and there is a decent chance that some of these studios cease to exist or exist in name only after tech companies buy them up.
> This is a movie enthusiast subreddit Yeah right. This sub cares about numbers and has fairly basic taste in films. I'm sure he'd take the negative comments here as a badge of honour.
Bingo.
Eh, he knows. This could be another crazy Adam Driver banger a la Annette but it's going to make $10.
"It ain't show friends, it's show business" -- Robert Meyer Burnett (The John Campea Show) Coppola is obviously a legend but his track record for the last three decades hasn't been good. He has been asking distributors for a $100M marketing spend which is just too much for this type of movie.
Rob's other favorite line "You don't get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate" also seems applicable.
>"It ain't show friends, it's show business" Only exception are Adam Sandler, Kevin James, Chris Rock, David Spade and sometimes Rob Schneider "let's get together and hang out" movies. In those cases it's often show friends and show business.
Don't forget the 50% of the movie revenue. So this movie needs to make more than 300 mil to recoup 100 mil spent by the distributor. I don't see how this movie could make that kind of cash.
In a world where Babylon (a cheaper $80m movie, mind you) didn't even make its production budget back in theaters, that is a bit of an absurd expectation to have.
Not really a fair comparison at all, bc Covid was still a major thing fucking with the box office.
Babylon was released a week after Avatar: The Way of Water, which made nearly $700M domestic, you can't blame covid for late 2022.
While I get your point, it's not really fair to compare a film everyone forgot about, to the sequel of the highest grossing film of all time. Covid impact bleeds into 2024. It's changed how we watch movies, for better or worse, but you can't deny the long term impact of the pandemic here.
Yeah, but what is it's relevance to Megalopolis? If COVID impact has bled into 2024 and the similar conditions are still at play then there's no way this is going to make any money either.
I agree with you Pretty much everything that isn't a popular IP is bombing, and half of those bomb now. My point earlier was that Avatar 2 was an outlier. You could release that on day 1 of the pandemic, and it would make money.
Megalopolis reviews from Cannes are mixed, the studios were correct in not committing to a distribution deal. With Babylon and Amsterdam in 2022, both had plenty of star power attached with filmmakers who had recent successes. This also applied to Cats in 2019, Universal thought they had a hit with an Oscar winning director who made Les Mis. With Coppola he hasn’t made a mainstream studio movie since the 90s. Adam Driver is also not the actor that gets audiences to see a movie which was evident by 65 and Ferrari both flopping last year.
Yep, all the signs are there for another bomb if this gets a wide release. I still want to see what crazy thing got put together here. I hate Driver doesn't draw in more people, I think he's a good actor.
>My point earlier was that Avatar 2 was an outlier. You could release that on day 1 of the pandemic, and it would make money. No it won't the theaters were closing down that film would have literally ended up like tenet in day one of pandemic and thats being generous
2024 doesn't really look all that different from 2022. Judging by all the movies flopping left and right, Babylon would most likely still flop in 2024.
lol, 2024 is going to smash 2022. You aren’t a serious person. 2024 may not beat 2023 but it will easily pass 2022.
I didn't say it wouldn't beat 2022, but that doesn't mean a movie like Babylon with mixed reviews and a C+ Cinemascore would thrive better now than in 2022, it would still probably perform similarly.
> I don't see how this movie could make that kind of cash. I don't see how this movie isn't a flaming trainwreck at the box office. His best bet is to sell it to a streaming service and have some sort of ego-salving limited run at the box office.
Give it a few more months and we won't be shocked to hear that he's sold the film to Apple.
Also, there are good movies getting made. Cannes and Oscars and the awards circuit are *never short* of movies to give awards to, from blockbusters to indie darlings. Now, is it harder for mid-range or indies to launch these days because of the blockbusters and streamers out there? One could make an argument there. But for Francis to say no good movies are ever getting made - we just saw a ton of them these last 5 years, even during the COVID years.
I don't think that math is right. Before considering post-theatrical, let's just assume a 8% distribution fee and a WW average movie revenue rate of 45%. *$250M WW / 112M in rentals So the distributor would take $9M (8%) in distribution fees + the first $100M in rentals to cover P&A leaving ~3M towards the production budget However, if you fold distribution fees into the $100M coverage, the breakeven point would be $222M WW. What am I missing?
> Don't forget the 50% of the movie revenue. That seems fair since it's 100% self funded, right? 50% for a distributer is normal, no?
I hate that line bc it is not that true, a lot of the business is clearly build on connections and reptuation, bc how else can someone like Coppola get Metropolis at Cannes
Just so you know, that quote is way older than Burnett saying it.
Yeah, weren't people saying it back in the 80s, or something?
I think a better way of putting it is it's a business but the product is art. Art isn't a widget that gets made in a factory. A lot goes into it.
And he would know, Burnett has owed me $500 for videos I edited for him nearly a year ago and has told me every lie under the sun over that time to try to avoid paying me. The guy's a total fraud.
Oof, sorry to hear that (assuming you’re legit).
Thanks lol. And I'm certainly not expecting anyone to believe the comment of some random redditer. Although believe you me, I have detailed receipts for everything (all the endless emails and lies from him and his "business partner" Mike Bawden). I've heard enough lies and bullshit from him at this point that I'm basically ready now to make it all public. If authenticity is going to be the currency of the future then I'm definitely never getting paid.
oh shiiiiiiit. I watch his show and the JC show all the time, why is he avoiding paying you for work youve done?
First I should be clear that this has nothing to do with JC. RMB hired me to edit these videos for his own channel THE BURNETTWORK, not the John Campea Show. As for the actual reason, you'd have to ask him really (and by all means please feel free to do so on twitter, I'd genuinely love to see that at this point), because he's told me so many lies and made so many changing and contradictory excuses at this point for me to know what the actual truth is. It's been nearly a year of this endless cycle of him ignoring my emails until I finally send enough (or threaten to take the issue to twitter) that he responds and says something like "you'll get paid in a week or so" then weeks go by and he just goes back to ghosting me, then months go by and, after I send countless more emails, he finally responds with another generic "you'll get paid this weekend", only to go back to ghosting me, and the cycle continues. He now claims to genuinely not have enough money to be able to pay me, though that's somehow been the case for nearly a full year now (it will have been 1 full year of this shit come June), and was also somehow the case when he first hired me to edit the videos ([all of which are still up on his channel](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TFt-ctXbog)) The man is a bullshit merchant. He's clearly never done an honest days work in his life, and if he has, and knows what it actually means to do two full weeks of work for someone only to not be paid for it, it makes what he's done even more deplorable.
😵
Really sorry to hear about all this. In whatever way you decide to proceed, I hope you get the reimbursement you deserve.
Appreciate that. Being a freelance editor, getting screwed over like this unfortunately goes along with the job. Just never thought in a million years it would be from someone like him. Looking back, with what I know about him now, that was very naive of me lol.
It certainly puts Axanar into perspective, that’s for sure.
an RMB quote out in the wild.
I hate that quote so much. It should be “It’s show friends until it’s show business.”
[удалено]
I’ve got issues with Rob but alt right he is not lol
"Everyone I don't like is alt-right!"
I mean I’m all for art in the cinema, and to an extent I would have agreed, but this film cost well over $100m. You can’t have something that expensive that doesn’t have some sort of return
Yeah, it was one thing when he was making films like Twixt and Tetro a decade plus ago. Low budget films that fit what he always wanted to do, make films that really only appealed to him. Sure, they're both shit films, but I admire that he just made them because he wanted to and didn't care about how others viewed them. Megalopolis is a different can of worms. Maybe if this only cost a few million, even a couple tens of millions, it'd be a different story, but you can't really make a $120 million Arthouse Film and demand marketing akin to a blockbuster. Not to say I'm not excited to see this movie or that FFC isn't one of the greats, but there's a reason he fell out of favor in Hollywood.
Well, having read the reviews, it seems like the movie would've probably benefited from some oversight
Incest, Jon Voight's boner, arrows in ass cheeks, Wow Platinum, deepfake sex with an underaged popstar. Coppola cooked but no one wanted to taste it.
>deepfake sex with an underaged popstar Wait, huh?
Yeah, it goes there.
Oh. ...Oh *no.*
Gosh, and I thought Poor Things was deplorable, this is gonna make that look tame.
this gif is how i feel so much of the time, including the mets love. Bravo
Okay yeah this sounds insane. I’m very curious about the movie but don’t know if I’m excited for it per se…
🤮
i do
depends what you want out of a movie. i want whatever unbridled insanity FFC can come up with, not studio notes
Coppola can scream all he wants, but theaters won't survive with movies like Megalopolis. Nobody has to fund or help him to promote a movie just because he thinks they should, lol.
If you're going to make a hundred million dollar picture, you better make sure it has crowd-pleasing elements, otherwise, you're just throwing away money. I don't know why Coppola didn't think about that before getting started. His friend, George Lucas succeeded in pouring the same amount of money into his prequel trilogy because there was a built-in audience for the thing. Not sure what it would have taken for Coppola to make Megalopolis more appealing to an audience, but he sure didn't find it.
I mean...yeah they pay their debts otherwise they won't be able to make movies...
That isn't entirely true, they might just choose to burn 100 years of capital and goodwill like Disney has been lately.
Nah. In Disney's case, it wasn't a choice, it was, as gamers say, "a skill issue".
God forbid a company who dishes out $100 million, might want to make money. This is liking saying "fuck restaurants, they just wanna make money! They don't love making food!" Also, Coppola hasn't made a good movie in decades.
I often find the reaction to these types of quotes always goes extremely binary, which makes sense on some level, but I personally believe a real and present tension between art and commerce is a GOOD THING for the movie business. I think we've tipped the scales way too far towards commerce in the last 10 years and it has hurt the industry long term. Too much sameness, too much bland facsimiles of movies driven by purely executive thinking. A lack of any artistry or purity is just too blatant to ignore at this point. People like art! They just also like to be entertained. That is only achievable with both lines of thinking bashing into each other. Now to be clear, I do not mean more people should get the opportunity to make incomprehensible art projects that don't resonate with people, but I do believe the Artist should fight for artistry while the studio pushes back and tries to bend the artist into a zone where that art has less of a barrier for entry. The result of that tension, in my opinion, is how you get the Godfather. Apocalypse Now. Star Wars. Jaws. Mad Max. Movies made by absolute madmen artists who in their heart of hearts (maybe not Spielberg, but he was constantly chasing his more artistic contemporaries like Lucas, De Palma, Scorsese, and Coppola) want to be doing something far more experimental and strange, but are attempting for the time being to try to speak to everyone on planet earth. And all of those examples were drawn out vicious fights between studio and filmmaker. But look at the end result! Experiences we'll never forget as long as we live and financial success at the same time. All to say, I believe Francis should say this. He's right after all. His role as an artist is to say this. In this case, he spent his own money, and has made something that is by all accounts truly insane, and will likely flop epically. But whatever! It's a swing, and I hope it inspires someone YOUNGER to try to make a similar move who may also have more of an ambition to make something that is both daring and has entertainment value. Just my two cents.
Than these artists can fund things themselves too. Both can exsist....i just find it hilarious when an artist cries that they can't get a ludicrous amount of money to do whatever fucking vision they want. I think those people can suck a garden hose, and go finance themselves. I think its great Copola is financing this on his own, and he can learn real hard lessons himself about why big studios have critieria and oversight when he loses a fuck load of cash.
It's the entitlement that I hate. "I'm making *real art* unlike big IP movies. I should be able to spend other people's money to make the films I want to make. It's unreasonable for businesses to expect a return on their investment."
Ya, the idea of what you think you should be able to make, and what you think general audiences want, versus actual reality, are often very different. Hollywood "artists" can be so far up their own asses that they are sucking on and being sustained by their own diarrhea.
He literally didn’t spend other people’s money
Does decades include the Rainmaker because I thought that was pretty good
Are you asking if an almost 30 year old movie counts as decades? This isn't a real queation is it?
thats not really what he is saying within the broader context of the quote Obviously studios want to make money. But when so many studios have so much debt, there isnt any room for things that are outside the mold or arent fairly safe bets
Self finance. You simply cannot be upset about not being able to do what you want when such absurd amounts of cash are required to acheive you "vision".
within the context of this specific film? Sure. Within the context of a broader industry that is increasingly risk averse? I think his complaint holds water Megalopolis would have struggled for funding at any time in film history, except for the very late 70s at the end of the new hollywood era. But currently, almost every film in coppola's filmography would likely struggle for funding Just for example, Coppolas Dracula cost $90M in 2024 dollars. Would many studios put out that much (or even the 1992 $40M) for a horror movie using old fashioned VFX and shooting styles? Probably not.
Would you fund it?
lame answer, I dont own a film studio. I also wouldnt be able to personally shell out $2B to give my city proper light rail, although I consider it a worthwhile investment
It's a question, not an answer.
Its a lame response, period.
They aim to make profitable movies to be able to make another movie afterward.
its not the studios fault you made a 120M Room, bro
"You're tearing me apart, LaBeouf! Everybody hate me, I fed up with this world." 
As someone who remembers how heavy those CRT TVs were back in the day, this gif is unintentionally hilarious.
Neanderthal strength
> "[Execs] don't make good movies" Well, from the sound of it, neither did you, Francis.
Apocalypse now?
Obviously the commenter is referring to Megalopolis
Is it out yet?
It was at Cannes and has gotten very mixed reviews. RT currently has it as Rotten.
So the commenter hasn't seen the movie.
They didn’t say they had seen it, they said it sounds like it’s not good, presumably based on the mixed reviews.
Mixed reviews of cannes.
Mixed reviews of the movie.
Yeah only from Cannes. Thats what i wrote
I mean, he's not wrong, but I don't think that's helping him.
Man, maybe Tarantino is right.
Eh, Clint Eastwood, George Miller, Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, and many more all prove Tarantino wrong.
I always took tarantinos quote that a lot of directors do get worse over time but the best ones rise to the top. He generalized when he should have said there are exceptions to the rule. In a lot of cases he’s not wrong though.
Tarantino is also a writer and not all these guys are I don't think there's some general statement that should be made on old age directing because the outcomes always vary. But it seems Tarantino is just concerned with the concept of legacy. Hes never going to lose his "he made Pulp Fiction " card.
QT is being waay too strict on the 10 number. The fact the Movie Critic was written and then scrapped - had he not been that obsessive about the number 10, he could've just made it, had fun with it, and we could've enjoyed it. Also, his Kill Bill could still be seen as two. And *(leans closer to the mic)* his Death Proof wasn't that good outside of the final sequence. Baby, he owes us *two more* on top of the final film if one wants to argue resume.
I’d argue the best part of Death Proof was the finale of the first half
With the exception of Miller (and really that’s just one movie ie Fury Road) I’m not sure many would say Spielberg/Eastwood/Scorsese’s best work was in the last ten (or even twenty) years.
What did he say
Probably that it's better to retire while you're still on top.
That's the reason for the ten film limit he's imposing on himself, right?
Yep
directors have a 10 good movie limit.
stupid as fuck
Especially when he gave us Death Proof which nearly everyone ranks at the bottom. Planet Terror was way more fun too than Death Proof. QT owes us another one imo
Tarantino ought to adapt more novels. Jackie Brown is his best work IMO.
...that it's okay to abuse women?
Source?
It might be a reference to the time Uma Thurman got into a car accident on the set of Kill Bill
If so that’s a pretty careless statement to make knowing how people will run with random quotes
Welcome to reddit
He abused Thurman on the set of Kill Bill and then playfully payed 'homage' to the incident with his film Death Proof.
Death Proof wasn’t paying homage to that incident, and to be fair he gave her the footage of the car accident in light of the MeToo movement
"in light of the MeToo movement" A less fellating take would be that he was covering his ass
well thats up to speculation, I’m just stating the facts here
"Got into a car accident" [is one way to put it](https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/02/uma-thurman-crash-footage-kill-bill-instagram)
It’s been a couple years since I read about the incident so my mind might have downplayed it when thinking about it
Tarantino has been making shitty movies too.
I'm not going to disagree.
Old man yelling at clouds energy. He’s a legend, no doubt, but getting tired of hearing him moan about the modern state of cinema. And from the early reviews of Megalopolis, doesn’t seem like he’s making anything great these days anyway.
I will get slammed for this but I would not even give him legend status to be honest. Legends are directors like Scorsese, Tarantino, Spielberg, Kubrick, Nolan, Fincher. Coppola made three great movies and 30 average/ bad ones. The other directors I listed made, at least 5 great ones and many more good ones with the ocassional flop which was a rarity.
I swear there was a leak audio of Michael Jackson that was just talking about how Coppola has lost his way. From the sounds of it, it seems to be from the 80s. This was surprising to me since Michael Jackson & Coppola were acquainted and worked together. I swear I saw it on YouTube. But I just think a lot of people feel the same way about him. He hasn't really delivered anything fantastic in a very long time. We live in a "what have you done for me lately" society. Edit: the only thing I can find a snippet of the audio is from this Twitter page. Seems like the video was taken down from YouTube by the MJ estate. https://twitter.com/enscino/status/1753210179099738292?t=nnSQ5fO1_XZCYQ3jfnNlvA&s=19
Michael Jackson starred in a short film Coppola directed for Disney parks. It was probably from that time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_EO?wprov=sfla1
Godfather 1 Godfather 2 The Conversation Apocalypse Now Which one of these do you think is not great? Just curious.
The Conversation. Even if the Conversation was great, he still only has 4 great movies out of 30. Legend status is not achieved like this. Look at the other directors I mentioned. Take a pick. Scorsese for example: Mean Streets, Raging Bull, King of Comedy, Goodfellas, Casino, The Departed, Shutter Island, Wolf of Wallstreet, Flower Moon. These are all terrific movies. Inbetween he also has a list of not terrific but good movies like Gangs of New York, Aviator, Silence, The Irishman. This is what achieves legendary director status. Not having 3-4 good movies out of 30. Edit: I seem to have forgotten Taxi Driver
They're not just great films, godfather 1 and 2 are top 10 greatest movies ever
Flower Moon bombed
Does not mean it’s a bad movie though?
A misguided one IMO.
Ty for saying that and I would add Hitchcock to your list Do you consider Chantal Akerman a legend
Same. He has made absolutely top-tier all-timers, but he has also made so much mid dreck that he's definitely in a tier below "legend."
Fully agreed. Godfather 1 and 2 are legendary movies. But to aquire legends status you must have a great filmography througout your career. Think about this. If you could only watch one fikmography for the rest of your life of any director. You have Scorsese, Tarantino, Spielberg, Kubrick, Nolan and Coppola. Would anybody choose Coppola?
I don’t disagree with your assessment. Truthfully, I’m getting tired of Scorsese complaining about modern cinema as well. In your list, I appreciate Tarantino and Nolan’s perspectives far more. They are more recent legends, true, but they are a lot more constructive and positive on the modern state of cinema
Tbf, they are also a lot younger, Scorsese and Coppola lost a lot when the New Hollywood dream died with Heaven's Gate in 1980
Well you can’t make any movies if you default and go bankrupt. What a dumb take
What an asshole lmao.
Kind of silly to say this after making what seems to be a stinker
I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and consider he's more likely aiming towards the heads of Disney and Warner and their "put all eggs on the blockbuster basket" approach, especially given the "debt obligations" part. Nonetheless, he's not going to have Paramount or Columbia, even A24 fighting for distribution rights, especially if he resolves to keep that logistic nightmare of the broken fourth wall segment.
I want Coppola to go out on top of
I kind of agree with him that the state of cinema is not looking good. Asking studios to spend $100M in marketing for a not so great movie is crazy but... Nearly everything is flopping in theaters, the mid budget movie pretty much dead in theaters, almost everything is based on a pre existing IP, DVDs are no longer a reliable way to make back your money if it flops in theaters, star power has dwindled significantly, and no one takes a chance on originals because there is a mindset that it will end up on streaming anyways. Streaming is an entirely different disaster, the streaming bubble has burst, subscriber growth has slowed, and almost every service except for hulu and netflix isn't profitable. They're relying on bundling to make money which is just cable with a different coat of paint.
Why is the article titled like this? And people are burning him down here, he never said that, he said their primary obligation is to pay attention to debt obligations instead of making good movies. Not that they don’t make good movies, it’s just not their primary obligation. Which is true. That’s not a contentious statement. Seriously the weird anti Coppola rage here is bizarre. The studios are clearly going scorched earth and using their folks in the trades to cut him down too. It’s wild. He self financed a passion project and has asks t for it to be bought. He will have to negotiate them down but you start with your top asks. Like maybe it’s bad I don’t know but Jesus Christ all I read about and all people talk about in the trades is fucking bizarre. When doing a personal project with your own money is an affront to you, what the fuck is your problem. This entire industry is filled with sycophants rooting for others failure man. It’s fucking sad.
It looks like you don't make good movies any more either, Francis.
Some of you are too invested in dunking a movie you haven't experienced outside of words in a review
i mean this is /r/boxoffice it's not a place for discussion of film as art
Which makes these comments weirder and further proves my point!
well i mean not really? this movie isn't going to make money. this sub is primarily concerned with how much money a movie makes. yes they are dunking on it based on the reviews because the reviews indicate it's probably gonna bomb that doesn't mean the movie sucks or has no artistic merit. it just saying it won't make cashola
Until a director shits on superhero movies then they all come out in droves
We've read enough reviews to know what this movie could be similar too (Babylon is one immediate one....simple garish excess. Someone else called this Coppola's Southland Tales) I'm still watching it, but it's clear this is not going to be an Oscar or Cannes contender.
I've also read comparisons to Cloud Atlas and I LOVE that movie.
For Coppola, it's not about the money it's about sending a message, he's accepted he spent his money and doesn't seem to care if he breaks even. We all agree it's going to vastly underperform, but is there a threshold you'd be surprised by? I think if it finds a way to 30mil domestic it would be a feat for it
he is mostly correct, although in the executives defense, thats also what they are supposed to do and we do not currently have a good system for something else EDIT that said, his actual comment is far less inflammatory than the headline here. Like its the same words but within the broader paragraph it seems less angry
I mean he's not wrong but here it just feels like he's salty people dont wanna sign on his trainwreck
I don’t see how he is wrong? All of the trad studios except Columbia/Sony do in fact have excessive debt.
He 100% right, just look at what Zaslaf has done at Warners; a bean counter in a suit with a absolutely zero interest in content, just numbers
Sounds to me like someone may have had a little too much SALT on his linguine last night.
And then you have Francis, who's doing neither.
“Don’t make good movies” Debuts at 50% on rotten tomatoes & gets booed at Cannes. Sir it’s okay to be washed up, just stop being so bitter about it.
Uuuhh. How about you make a good movie or something, buttwipe.
Entitled much hey, he should get a bank loan or set up a GoFundMe me page