Filmmakers : Terrence Malick

[ShogunRua]

I think if the films are like The Thin Red Line (which is his most successful film),

Actually, "The Thin Red Line" lost money on its theatrical release. Not a lot, but at least $18 million by my estimation.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=thinredline.htm

It had a production budget of $52 million, and a P&A (press and advertisement) budget of at least $20 million. (An extremely conservative guess) Meanwhile, it made $98 million. The theaters take a certain cut (20% on opening weekend, 50% for several weeks after that, and 80% after that), which we can estimate at 45% overall.

Of $98 million, the remaining 55% that goes to the producers is $53.9 million.

Thus,

(Theatrical Revenue)- (Production Budget + Press and Advertisement) = -$18.1 million

Again, "The Thin Red Line" might have ultimately broke even or even made money through ancillary rights (DVDs, showings on HBO and other networks, etc.), but it lost money in theaters.

And keep in mind that was back in 1998, way before the era of CGI, sequels, remakes, and superhero and comic book adaptations. I think such a film would fare far worse nowadays.

All of this is to say that I continue to be baffled as to why so many studio executives were willing to give Malick tens of millions to make new movies when it appears very unlikely his pictures can be profitable nowadays.

[Pickpocket]

I'm surprised The Thin Red Line had only 20 million more for a production budget. It looked better, more things were happening, had more of an A list cast, and it was significantly longer. Oh and it also had a story. Surely the terrible CGI in Tree of Life wasn't that expensive, I'm finding it hard to see where he spent 32 million dollars.

[ShogunRua]

I'd have to agree. I don't consider myself the average John Q Moviegoer, which means that I can appreciate the more artsy films, but if I (and probably other members of this forum) find Malick's movies a bit unapproachable, I don't know how the studios expect to draw in the average moviegoing crowd who the majority of would probably be rather watching Paranormal Activity 6.

Exactly. You hit the nail on the head here.

I'm surprised The Thin Red Line had only 20 million more for a production budget. It looked better, more things were happening, had more of an A list cast, and it was significantly longer. Oh and it also had a story. Surely the terrible CGI in Tree of Life wasn't that expensive, I'm finding it hard to see where he spent 32 million dollars.

I often wonder about that, too. I think it's because certain aspects of a film become more expensive to produce over time, well ahead of inflation. What they are is a mystery to me, though...

[djross]

Interview with Malick editor Billy Weber:

http://www.terrencemalick.org/2011/11/all-things-shining-interviews-billy.html

[sixx]

Surely the terrible CGI in Tree of Life wasn't that expensive, I'm finding it hard to see where he spent 32 million dollars.

I'd bet a lot of that money is going towards Voyage of Time.

[TheDenizen]

Again UNTITLED must watch!

so, this user is a bot, right?

New profile, zero movies rated and a bunch of forum posts that don't make much sense/are only kinda related to the topics at hand. Why do people do this?

[3dRevelation]

Am I the only one who laughed through this trailer?

[Bojangles]

Terrence Malick: Director In the Rye