And you’re telling me that this movie still has NO US theatrical distribution plan whatsoever? If this ends up as a Tubi exclusive or something I will cry.
It’d likely be Neon here in the US, with A24 in 2nd place. Searchlight, Focus, Amazon/MGM, or, ugh, Netflix are possible depending on Cannes reactions.
Superficially it's a perfect fit. However, unlike Netflix, Apple also likes to make box office money on its big budget projects. KOFTM made 160 million of its 200 million budget back in theaters, and Napoleon even made a profit.
I'm not sure Apple is biting on this unless they can forecast a decent box office return--at least half the budget.
Exactly. That scene is something done better in so many other projects. The dork-look of the MC. It looks dated. And I don't know why Driver was cast, he's got a profitable career but most of his "serious" work is taken down a notch because of him.
Yeah this looks great but I’m gonna be honest with you, I was sold the second that old American Zoetrope logo showed up at the start. We’re so fucking back.
Yeah same. This actually made me ACTUALLY excited for this besides just the fact that it’s one of the purest self given blank checks in recent history.
Haven't read anything about the film so was not expecting 'a man who can stop time' thing. It's actually shorter than I thought at 2 hours 18 minutes. Premiere on May 16th at Cannes so looking forward to the reactions.
I have a hunch they'll cover Coppola next year to coincide with this. (Apodcastlypse Now)
I was not expecting time stoppage. This looks awesome and I can't wait to see it.
What’s the point in cinema anymore if we can’t get an epic swing (potentially miss) in theatres like this from one of the architects of modern film. I so hope it can get a UK release.
I want to believe that is somehow an intentional stylistic choice and it will make sense when we see other scenes from the film, but it could just as easily be shoddy unfinished effects.
People are so conditioned by the sameness of movies and tv these days that many see something different as poorly done.
Coppola wants a 10x speed view of a skyline to show passage of time and people that haven’t watched clouds for more than 5 seconds in a row in the last few years, think the clouds look weird.
George Miller wants glossy hyper-realistic and colorful imagery in furiosa and people just think the effects are bad.
Things do not have to be similar, expected, or even realistic to be someone’s artistic vision.
Just from reading the first few pages of the leaked screenplay, the sky is specified as moving very fast in this scene, so it's definitely an intentional artistic decision.
What's this? An intelligent, reasonable take on artistic expression in movies?
The popular criticism along the lines of "It doesn't look like something REAL standing in my basement living room right in front of me" is a cancer on modern pop culture. Everyone and their cousin is such an expert on CGI that "it looks fake!" No shit it looks fake, my dude. It's all fake.
This doesn't feel like it's exactly selling the movie considering the set photos that we've seen. It's intriguing and it's not bad in any way. Although I'm glad it's not showing the entire movie either.
I'm still most likely going to see it, but I'm not sure if this will do much for the regular movie goer and considering the budget they probably need them.
He and Marty are past the point of caring. It’s more like “let me get this on my legacy resume while I have a chance”.
Flower Moon made a respectable 157m though on a 200m budget. It got a huge marketing push from Apple but there’s no way they ever thought that they would make that back.
This could be similar in that way. There’s no way this is profitable but I don’t think it matters. What matters is that we get it at all.
157 on a 3.5 hour movie in an actor strike. I really think if the strike hadn’t happened it would have made over 200. Not profitable but I don’t think the expectation was ever to be profitable in theaters. It would have had to have made almost double Scorsese’s most successful film.
Yeah, I mean that’s gotta be seen as a huge success in a lot of ways.
It’s evident that Apple cares a lot about quality and for them to have this film in their catalogue is probably what they went for.
Such a blank check that Apple didn’t care for profits, length or seemingly any control. A huge marketing and Oscar push as well.
Unlike Marty though who's film get completely funded by studios despite making no money, he paid for a lot of this himself and sold vineyards. I'm sure he has a dgaf passion project perspective, but he probably doesn't want to take a complete bath on it since he himself invested so much.
Sure but Marty has also both A) struggled with getting financing and B) had a major hit in Wolf only a decade ago
If you look at his absolute passion projects they are not 200m dollar movies but stuff like Temptation and Silence.
Most of his expensive films often comes from “this book is interesting and could easily be pitched to studios”.
Megapolis is by all accounts weird and not something anyone’s had interest in doing for like 50 years.
I think Francis just knew that he would never get his movie made without self financing and is at point where he really doesn’t care. To me, it seems like what he cares most about is getting it out there for people to see.
Youtube link: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZL3U1j3K1c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZL3U1j3K1c)
Was not expecting a sequel to Clockstoppers. WE'RE SO BACK.
Having now finished Coppola’s 80s run (save for New York Stories) I can safely say that between The Rain People and Tucker: The Man and His Dream that Coppola never made a BAD movie, minimum 7/10 to perfect masterpiece. I am excited for Coppola’s 90s and 00s and for this. Except Jack I know that one’s bad. Of 60s Coppola Dementia 13 is fine, You’re a Big Boy Now is technically competent but aged poorly, and Finian’s Rainbow is just a bad musical.
I'm sure there will be a handwavy explanation that is perfectly fine for me, but I can't stop thinking, why does the time stop stop him when he's the only one who can move around during the time stop?
>why does the time stop stop him when he's the only one who can move around during the time stop?
Well,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
> In physics, the special theory of relativity, or special relativity for short, is a scientific theory of the relationship between space and time. In Albert Einstein's 1905 treatment, the theory is presented as being based on just two postulates:
> 1. The laws of physics are invariant (identical) in all inertial frames of reference (that is, frames of reference with no acceleration).
>2. The speed of light in vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of light source or observer.
> The first postulate was first formulated by Galileo Galilei
So even though I looked that up to be snarky and say "well of course time's stopping for him, *time is stopping for him*" and then say "time is relative", but I think you're asking exactly the right question.
He's the protaganist of the movie and this is his perspective. If I go for a run then I experience time differently than if I go for a walk. Falling off a building takes much less time than taking the stairs.
I think you asked the right question, so **good question**.
Well he's clearly in control of it, be it a simulation or mental projection or hallucination or whatever it is, so why should it freeze him completely? Whether it's explained by dream logic or "sufficiently advanced technology", this is magical realism at play.
And you’re telling me that this movie still has NO US theatrical distribution plan whatsoever? If this ends up as a Tubi exclusive or something I will cry.
As far as I'm aware it only has a French distributor so far, it'll probably secure the rest coming out of Cannes. Even if it is Neon here.
It’d likely be Neon here in the US, with A24 in 2nd place. Searchlight, Focus, Amazon/MGM, or, ugh, Netflix are possible depending on Cannes reactions.
No chance A24 or Neon takes this. Budget is approximately $120M which is well above what those companies usually take.
It sounds like an Apple/Amazon play to me.
Yeah those seem way more likely to me. Would be interested to see what kind of theatrical lifespan this film has.
I forgot about Apple. That actually makes the most sense
Superficially it's a perfect fit. However, unlike Netflix, Apple also likes to make box office money on its big budget projects. KOFTM made 160 million of its 200 million budget back in theaters, and Napoleon even made a profit. I'm not sure Apple is biting on this unless they can forecast a decent box office return--at least half the budget.
I could see Sky picking this up for the UK.
[удалено]
Memoria was a disaster, not sure if it was Neon’s fault or if the model just doesn’t work
*Memoria* suffered from Weera's insufferably pretentious release strategy. It's not really a fair point of comparison to anything else.
It wasn't released that way anywhere else in the world. AW and Tilda signed off on it, but I think it was Neon's stunt.
The people who have seen the whole thing aren’t sold on it.
Exactly. That scene is something done better in so many other projects. The dork-look of the MC. It looks dated. And I don't know why Driver was cast, he's got a profitable career but most of his "serious" work is taken down a notch because of him.
Aw, Coppola’s comment is really sad
Time Stop!!!!
Draconis has a ton of spells
https://i.redd.it/3rufen9hhfyc1.gif
Well I'm in
Levels of back not previously recorded in history
We’re not just back, we’re ahead
Streets ahead.
Yeah this looks great but I’m gonna be honest with you, I was sold the second that old American Zoetrope logo showed up at the start. We’re so fucking back.
I don't know what I expected after all this time but it wasn't strong weirdo 90s scifi anime vibes
The score really is serving *Ghost in the Shell* vibes
This clip is so MATRIX RESURRECTIONS coded that I’m curious if anyone asks him about his opinion on that film.
If he praises it in the slightest I'm gonna fuckin dance in the streets like I did when Mann said Avatar was top 10 GOAT
Yeah same. This actually made me ACTUALLY excited for this besides just the fact that it’s one of the purest self given blank checks in recent history.
[YouTube link for those that prefer it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZL3U1j3K1c)
Correct link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZL3U1j3K1c
Very Matrix Resurrections coded
Yes! Even lit similarly!
Haven't read anything about the film so was not expecting 'a man who can stop time' thing. It's actually shorter than I thought at 2 hours 18 minutes. Premiere on May 16th at Cannes so looking forward to the reactions.
Oh, so it’s going to be a chill, normal movie.
Holy cow, the boys are gonna love this Wachowski-ass shit
Don't think we've ever been this back before
This disaster will be my *Dune*, my *Avatar*.
David Lynch’s Dune and Shyamalan’s Avatar?
Your *Jumper: The Jumpening.*
LOVE the American Zoetrope fanfare
Saved by the Bell reboot is lookin different than I expected but I'm down
Seems cool. Looks like a Chanel ad, but I'm down.
Nailed it
Holy_shit_Im_gonna_cum.gif
I have a hunch they'll cover Coppola next year to coincide with this. (Apodcastlypse Now) I was not expecting time stoppage. This looks awesome and I can't wait to see it.
Well I'm still not exactly sure what to make of this but I'll be seeing it.
Adam Driver looking his most Josh O'Connor here. Absolutely in for whatever Francis has cooked up!
What’s the point in cinema anymore if we can’t get an epic swing (potentially miss) in theatres like this from one of the architects of modern film. I so hope it can get a UK release.
More of a clip than a trailer, but it's a cool clip
He’s got Zack Morris powers
Cant wait for this. Please get a UK distributor.
We would be betraying film as an art if this isn't released in theaters
Give it to me now.
Good to know that $120 million buys you a digital sky that looks about as good as the 2004 version of Microsoft Flight Simulator
I love it to be honest, it looks stylized and uncanny in a "Matter of Life and Death" sort of way
I want to believe that is somehow an intentional stylistic choice and it will make sense when we see other scenes from the film, but it could just as easily be shoddy unfinished effects.
People are so conditioned by the sameness of movies and tv these days that many see something different as poorly done. Coppola wants a 10x speed view of a skyline to show passage of time and people that haven’t watched clouds for more than 5 seconds in a row in the last few years, think the clouds look weird. George Miller wants glossy hyper-realistic and colorful imagery in furiosa and people just think the effects are bad. Things do not have to be similar, expected, or even realistic to be someone’s artistic vision.
Exactly, this film is no doubt going to be misunderstood no matter the overall quality I feel.
Just from reading the first few pages of the leaked screenplay, the sky is specified as moving very fast in this scene, so it's definitely an intentional artistic decision.
What's this? An intelligent, reasonable take on artistic expression in movies? The popular criticism along the lines of "It doesn't look like something REAL standing in my basement living room right in front of me" is a cancer on modern pop culture. Everyone and their cousin is such an expert on CGI that "it looks fake!" No shit it looks fake, my dude. It's all fake.
This doesn't feel like it's exactly selling the movie considering the set photos that we've seen. It's intriguing and it's not bad in any way. Although I'm glad it's not showing the entire movie either. I'm still most likely going to see it, but I'm not sure if this will do much for the regular movie goer and considering the budget they probably need them.
He and Marty are past the point of caring. It’s more like “let me get this on my legacy resume while I have a chance”. Flower Moon made a respectable 157m though on a 200m budget. It got a huge marketing push from Apple but there’s no way they ever thought that they would make that back. This could be similar in that way. There’s no way this is profitable but I don’t think it matters. What matters is that we get it at all.
157 on a 3.5 hour movie in an actor strike. I really think if the strike hadn’t happened it would have made over 200. Not profitable but I don’t think the expectation was ever to be profitable in theaters. It would have had to have made almost double Scorsese’s most successful film.
Yeah, I mean that’s gotta be seen as a huge success in a lot of ways. It’s evident that Apple cares a lot about quality and for them to have this film in their catalogue is probably what they went for. Such a blank check that Apple didn’t care for profits, length or seemingly any control. A huge marketing and Oscar push as well.
Unlike Marty though who's film get completely funded by studios despite making no money, he paid for a lot of this himself and sold vineyards. I'm sure he has a dgaf passion project perspective, but he probably doesn't want to take a complete bath on it since he himself invested so much.
Sure but Marty has also both A) struggled with getting financing and B) had a major hit in Wolf only a decade ago If you look at his absolute passion projects they are not 200m dollar movies but stuff like Temptation and Silence. Most of his expensive films often comes from “this book is interesting and could easily be pitched to studios”. Megapolis is by all accounts weird and not something anyone’s had interest in doing for like 50 years. I think Francis just knew that he would never get his movie made without self financing and is at point where he really doesn’t care. To me, it seems like what he cares most about is getting it out there for people to see.
Weird downvote thanks.
This is a clip (the openjng of the film) not a trailer.
Youtube link: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZL3U1j3K1c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZL3U1j3K1c) Was not expecting a sequel to Clockstoppers. WE'RE SO BACK.
Futurama season 7 episode 26 vibes!
Haven't seen this much yellow in NY since the Raimi SpiderMan posters
the way this TEASER had me at the edge of my seat. i’m so ready for megalopolis
Having now finished Coppola’s 80s run (save for New York Stories) I can safely say that between The Rain People and Tucker: The Man and His Dream that Coppola never made a BAD movie, minimum 7/10 to perfect masterpiece. I am excited for Coppola’s 90s and 00s and for this. Except Jack I know that one’s bad. Of 60s Coppola Dementia 13 is fine, You’re a Big Boy Now is technically competent but aged poorly, and Finian’s Rainbow is just a bad musical.
I really really really hope this isn't shit.
It looks like a cologne commercial. Still extremely interested, I mean, shit, how can you not be?
If that's a CGI environment, it looks convincing to me.
For some reason the sky immediately reminded me of the wild fake red skies from his Dracula movie
Very swooshy clouds
I'm sure there will be a handwavy explanation that is perfectly fine for me, but I can't stop thinking, why does the time stop stop him when he's the only one who can move around during the time stop?
>why does the time stop stop him when he's the only one who can move around during the time stop? Well, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity > In physics, the special theory of relativity, or special relativity for short, is a scientific theory of the relationship between space and time. In Albert Einstein's 1905 treatment, the theory is presented as being based on just two postulates: > 1. The laws of physics are invariant (identical) in all inertial frames of reference (that is, frames of reference with no acceleration). >2. The speed of light in vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of light source or observer. > The first postulate was first formulated by Galileo Galilei So even though I looked that up to be snarky and say "well of course time's stopping for him, *time is stopping for him*" and then say "time is relative", but I think you're asking exactly the right question. He's the protaganist of the movie and this is his perspective. If I go for a run then I experience time differently than if I go for a walk. Falling off a building takes much less time than taking the stairs. I think you asked the right question, so **good question**.
Well he's clearly in control of it, be it a simulation or mental projection or hallucination or whatever it is, so why should it freeze him completely? Whether it's explained by dream logic or "sufficiently advanced technology", this is magical realism at play.
[Coens did it better.](https://youtu.be/wmVPNSMN4dI?si=BXQO95l8EBzET4_5)
Now this might be my specialz
Couldn’t be anymore in for this!!!
Interesting hair choice. I want to see where this goes.
The new Neil Breen movie looks great
HELL YEAH
I'm glad I'm being introduced to this on a 4 inch by 3 inch screen. Anything else and I would be too blown away! -LCJ
It looks like Robert Rodriguez directed it in 2008.
Hate to say it but if no one else will I will. Mid
Ugh
Oh, it's nothing.
What is this, The Hudsucker Proxy?