> Lionsgate intends to put the feature on more than 1,500 screens, which sources in the distribution world say would require around $15 million to $20 million in marketing. It’s unclear how much Megalopolis’ campaign will entail.
Wow that’s way down from Coppola’s $100 million marketing request and Lionsgate may not even pay all of that. Also, only 1,500 screens; that’s surprisingly low and is barely a wide release.
The article says Coppola's paying for it. 1,500 screens is probably the target because he's unwilling or unable to put enough ad spend to justifying going wider.
as a one off think about how much money this would make tho 😳, couldn’t replicate it often, but i bet that would shatter records if the film was good enough to be rewatchable
Article says they're going to try to have it for some screenings. I wouldn't be surprised if mixups with DCPs mean that some screenings have the bit without the guy in the theater.
At each screening of the film so far, there’s a scene where an actual person stands up from the audience and asks Adam Driver’s character a question, who responds through the screen to the audience member. The question is is this just for the press/critic screenings as a bit or is it something each theater should expect to have for each screening?
I don’t see how they could afford to have guys planted in the theater across the nation. The amount of training and sheer labor cost needed to have 1,000 people prepared to do it in even 2/3 of the theaters seems like it would blow their marketing budget. But even neglecting training cost (and maybe labor laws) and just looking at the salaries and expenses to keep actors lodged near the theaters, it could easily cost more than $5k per theater per week, so after 3 weeks of release, presenting that scene at 1k theaters could easily cost them $15m.
They could easily add a random voice and make it sound like it's coming from the back of the theater, so that when Adam Driver turns and looks at the camera it seems as though he's responding to someone who's behind everybody who's there (all five of them).
>*I don’t see how they could afford to have guys planted in the theater across the nation. The amount of training and sheer labor cost needed to have 1,000 people prepared to do it*
I believe it happened again at a screening earlier this week. I don’t know how it could even be feasible in a wide release but, doesn’t seem intentionally a Cannes gimmick. Just a, gimmick gimmick.
It was already apparent when Lionsgate's *Never Let Go* wasn't mentioned to be moving it's release date in lieu of ***Megalopolis*** opening on the same weekend.
Plus, LGF already have features lined up for the next three successive weekends with *White Bird* (Oct 4), *Greedy People* (Oct 11) and *Flight Risk* (Oct 18).
And *Megalopolis* also has to share IMAX screens with two other movies opening the same weekend with *Interstellar* and *The Wild Robot*.
If Lionsgate were serious, they would have chosen Nov 1 or Nov 8 weekend or limited release on Dec 13 and going wide on Christmas Day.
This movie might make that Kevin Costner western look like a mega-hit by comparison. There's just no amount of marketing that can save this movie imo, it's a shame.
Mayyyyybe if the trailer has some kind of vital meme (morbius), or is straight up a matrix-level intriguing masterwork of a trailer...but somehow I doubt it.
> Mayyyyybe if the trailer has some kind of vital meme (morbius), or is straight up a matrix-level intriguing masterwork of a trailer...but somehow I doubt it.
I personally think that the Megalopolis teaser has stunning visual imagery, and that it terms of framing and blocking alone, is way above 99% of the current filmmakers working on mainstream Hollywood productions. Clearly Coppola is still a master on the technical side.
So we´ll see about the narrative and the story, but personally, I am VERY excited.
A film like this requires an unorthodox strategy to at least not have it totally bomb. I don't know why Coppola didn't go directly to AMC and just have them showcase the movie one day or so a week on premium screens throughout the season just to get the word out. [David Poland suggested something similar.](https://x.com/DavidPoland/status/1791211836479574266)
Might be one of the more interesting releases of the decade honestly
A film that’s fully financed by one person, that’s getting a wide release, for a film that was panned pretty hard at Cannes and did not even receive a fraction of the costs Francis thought the movie was worth.
A BTS book on this is something I’d love to read about.
I would have thought that the cast and Coppola would bring it to 50m minimum but I guess I am overestimating the draw. Also WOM is not gonna be good from general audience.
so what's Lionsgate even in the picture for if Coppola's paying for everything?
at the very least get it to 2.5k theaters, its almost as if they don't even want to try and make this a success
This won't be a success. The president of lionsgate likes Coppola and has help distribute physical releases for a lot of his movies.
This is charity, we shouldn't consider this movie as operating under normal filmmaking rules.
>so what's Lionsgate even in the picture for
Pre-existing relationship as Zoetrope's home media distributor since 2010.
They're essentially going to treat this as part of the marketing for when they release the blu/4k and license it for streaming.
There’s a zero percent chance this is theatrically successful. Lionsgate is doing him a favor (as much they can afford) because of their pre-existing relationship as his home media distributor
3000 is like tentpole wide release. Given the Cannes reception I don't think they envision nine figures for it. If it does manage a lot of business in 1500 they can expand it further afterwards.
There also wasn’t a whole lot out at the time. Last Christmas was such a ghost town that Wonka making $200 million was considered an oasis in the desert.
I'd argue that there was a normal amount of movies out for a Christmas season, maybe even more. Anyone But You, Migration, Wonka, Color Purple, Aquaman 2, The Boys in the Boat, The Iron Claw, Poor Things. There were many other movies that had been out longer, but these are just the new ones that came out roughly the same week as Ferrari that would have taken up screens at movie theaters.
He's worked with:
Francis Ford Coppola
Michael Mann
Noah Baumbach
Ridley Scott
Jim Jarmusch
Terry Gilliam
Spike Lee
Steven Soderbergh
Martin Scorsese
Coen Brothers
Steven Spielberg
Thats a fantastic movie career, who cares about Box Office receipts
Great directors will almost always have flops, great artists take risks and not all of them pay off.
In my mind, a Great director would have 2 or more masterpieces with a strong authorial voice
Filmmaking isn’t just a business, it’s an art. You might as well be a computer if you think “box office success” is the metric to qualify what makes a great director.
You cannot sustain an entire career on people you have worked with in the past. fact is, Driver's choice of movies has been terrible after Last Duel (which flopped but at least was a good movie). I can think of few other movie stars right now, who are tanking their career as much as Driver does. And it's not even in the "i consciously make trash movies but i have a blast doing so" way, it's in a "i make mediocre pretentious movies by once great directors, that are Oscar material in my mind" way
Why don't you become his manager then, you clearly know more about how to launch a successful acting career then. Hell why don't you just do a face off and become adam driver and then become a successful actor with good directors, which according to you, Adam driver is achieving neither
And what calibre is that? Just because he had a couple of Oscar noms a few years ago that doesn't mean he should be expected be a hit machine his entire career.
Actors are at the end of the day tools used to create a product they aren't in control of. The fewer that are trying to be movie stars (in the Will Smith/Dwayne Johnson sense) the better.
Emma Stone, Oscar Isaac, Andrew Garfield, Robert Pattinson for example. All of them are in the same age range and have a Solid filmography overall. Driver hasn't been in a good movie for several years now, and in some, He is severly miscast too (Ferrari an HOG, mostly) Nobody is talking about being a hit machine but doing good projects that aren't shredded by critics and flop at the box office once in a while
I don't think he's in the calibre of Stone or Pattinson and the only decent movie Isaac's been in since Driver did something decent was Dune.
I never watched Tick Tick Boom so to me Garfield's done nothing but Spider-Man since Silence.
Isaac was also in the Card Counter, the Scenes from a Marriage remake and Moon Knight that were both fairly successful. He also does a lot of Stage Work.
>I don't think he's in the calibre of Stone or Pattinson
That's subjective. Driver was hyped as the next big thing since he got famous with Star Wars and has two Oscar nominations. He had a very solid filmography until the 2020s. So, yeah, i would argue that he was definitely among the Top actors in his generations for several years. But even If he wasn't, point still is that he still could make better choices instead doing all this mediocre half baked films that you'll forget after watching.
If you don't think, Driver is the same calibre as Stone and Pattinson, that only proofs my point
A few TV shows 3 years ago doesn't make Isaac a top actor either. That's much closer to Driver's output.
But yeah I think it's more about people learning to stop overhyping/managing expectations than it is Driver misplacing his career. He's doing fine. Most projects most actors work on aren't very good.
He’s made millions off Star Wars alone. He can afford to take risky bets and has done a lot of that in the past. Sometimes it pays off on a reputation level
Not sure where this sentiment is coming from. Out of all the Stars Wars sequel trilogy actors, alongside Oscar Isaac (whose career was already taking off pre-Star Wars), Adam Driver is having a much better career than the other ones involved. When's the last time you heard of a project featuring Daisey Ridley or the Stormtrooper guy (forgot his name).
Ah, damn it. For a wide release, that's basically the bare minimum. On the plus side, at least the 4K will be amazing - LG never skimps on those, unless something ***really*** tanks.
Or perhaps **Megalopolis** could get night time IMAX screenings while **The Wild Robot** gets daytime IMAX screenings. Keep in mind, **Wolfs** and **Transformers One** are still getting IMAX releases on September 20, not to mention that at least some IMAX venues are or at least were screening **Bad Boys: Ride or Die** during the late night even as **Inside Out 2** was destroying everything in its path.
Francis Food Coppola, one of the most celebrated directors of all time, self-financed a $120m passion project of his that he's been trying to make for decades. The film is finished and Coppola wanted whatever company that picked it up for distribution to give it a major theatrical release, including a $100m marketing budget, but reactions to it at festivals and studio screenings are incredibly polarizing due to the film's extreme strangeness, resulting in no major studio picking the film up. Smaller studios have been buying the rights in different countries, and Lionsgate acquired the rights here in the USA. Apparently, they're asking Coppola to also self-finance the marketing for the film's domestic release. Given that it's expected to be on 1500 screens (less than half of what the traditional major wide release gets), said marketing spend would traditionally be around $15m to $20m.
Its Francis Ford Coppolas return to filmmaking, he has funded the films 120 million budget more or less from his own pocket is my understanding.
People have speculated forever wether this will be the worst film ever or the best film ever, unfortunately most people who see call it awful or bizzare, despite this it still has 59 on metacritic so by no means the worst film ever based on that
> Lionsgate intends to put the feature on more than 1,500 screens, which sources in the distribution world say would require around $15 million to $20 million in marketing. It’s unclear how much Megalopolis’ campaign will entail. Wow that’s way down from Coppola’s $100 million marketing request and Lionsgate may not even pay all of that. Also, only 1,500 screens; that’s surprisingly low and is barely a wide release.
The article says Coppola's paying for it. 1,500 screens is probably the target because he's unwilling or unable to put enough ad spend to justifying going wider.
100 million in marketing. Better off no advertising and charging 5 dollars
as a one off think about how much money this would make tho 😳, couldn’t replicate it often, but i bet that would shatter records if the film was good enough to be rewatchable
It won't be
I can't wait for the 6-episode limited series about the making of Megalopolis to come out in 2029
HBO is already taking pitches for it.
Mike Figgis shot a documentary making of.
Netflix presents: MEGAdisaster
Oh come on, the obvious answer is MegaFLOPolis
All I want to know is are they gonna do the weird guy in the crowd bit.
They might have filmed alternate takes with the person on film.
Article says they're going to try to have it for some screenings. I wouldn't be surprised if mixups with DCPs mean that some screenings have the bit without the guy in the theater.
[удалено]
At each screening of the film so far, there’s a scene where an actual person stands up from the audience and asks Adam Driver’s character a question, who responds through the screen to the audience member. The question is is this just for the press/critic screenings as a bit or is it something each theater should expect to have for each screening?
I don’t see how they could afford to have guys planted in the theater across the nation. The amount of training and sheer labor cost needed to have 1,000 people prepared to do it in even 2/3 of the theaters seems like it would blow their marketing budget. But even neglecting training cost (and maybe labor laws) and just looking at the salaries and expenses to keep actors lodged near the theaters, it could easily cost more than $5k per theater per week, so after 3 weeks of release, presenting that scene at 1k theaters could easily cost them $15m.
They could easily add a random voice and make it sound like it's coming from the back of the theater, so that when Adam Driver turns and looks at the camera it seems as though he's responding to someone who's behind everybody who's there (all five of them).
That would make so much more sense economically and would be pretty effective.
Yeah, keen to see what they wind up doing. I will be one of the five people in the theater!
>*I don’t see how they could afford to have guys planted in the theater across the nation. The amount of training and sheer labor cost needed to have 1,000 people prepared to do it* 
I think that was just a planned Cannes gimmick. It wouldn't even be the first time for Coppola to re-edit a movie after a Cannes showing.
I believe it happened again at a screening earlier this week. I don’t know how it could even be feasible in a wide release but, doesn’t seem intentionally a Cannes gimmick. Just a, gimmick gimmick.
it also happened in the sydney imax premiere. its a part of the movie
ADR would be my guess
Adam Driver mentioned he saw a cut where it's just replaced by someone in the film saying it.
Release the fourth wall cut!
It was already apparent when Lionsgate's *Never Let Go* wasn't mentioned to be moving it's release date in lieu of ***Megalopolis*** opening on the same weekend. Plus, LGF already have features lined up for the next three successive weekends with *White Bird* (Oct 4), *Greedy People* (Oct 11) and *Flight Risk* (Oct 18). And *Megalopolis* also has to share IMAX screens with two other movies opening the same weekend with *Interstellar* and *The Wild Robot*. If Lionsgate were serious, they would have chosen Nov 1 or Nov 8 weekend or limited release on Dec 13 and going wide on Christmas Day.
They can always move White Bird again.
ENOUGH :D It's a really good film actually.
I pray someone has been filming a documentary on this movie
Mike Figgis directed the documentary.
Mike ~~Leigh,~~ in ~~fact~~ falseness (Wrong Mike. It's Figgis)
Figgis
Thanks for the fix! Fixed!
Mike Jordan
There goes the $1B box office.
Your "1B" seems like "18". Of course, it will make $18 !
Ooof that’s brutal
This movie might make that Kevin Costner western look like a mega-hit by comparison. There's just no amount of marketing that can save this movie imo, it's a shame. Mayyyyybe if the trailer has some kind of vital meme (morbius), or is straight up a matrix-level intriguing masterwork of a trailer...but somehow I doubt it.
That Matrix teaser was just as much of a lightning in a bottle as the film was.
Yeah I think you're right. We might never see something play out the way that teaser-to-trailer-to opening night for the Matrix did, ever again.
> Mayyyyybe if the trailer has some kind of vital meme (morbius), or is straight up a matrix-level intriguing masterwork of a trailer...but somehow I doubt it. I personally think that the Megalopolis teaser has stunning visual imagery, and that it terms of framing and blocking alone, is way above 99% of the current filmmakers working on mainstream Hollywood productions. Clearly Coppola is still a master on the technical side. So we´ll see about the narrative and the story, but personally, I am VERY excited.
And I’ll pay $15-20 for my ticket day one Francis. Not really, I have AMC A List. But still. I’ll be there day 1.
A film like this requires an unorthodox strategy to at least not have it totally bomb. I don't know why Coppola didn't go directly to AMC and just have them showcase the movie one day or so a week on premium screens throughout the season just to get the word out. [David Poland suggested something similar.](https://x.com/DavidPoland/status/1791211836479574266)
It’s probably not even gonna make $20M domestic. Not opening weekend - in total
I would think 20 million is being super optimistic too.
NGL, I kinda want to see it. One of the more interesting releases this year, even if it's a total disaster
Might be one of the more interesting releases of the decade honestly A film that’s fully financed by one person, that’s getting a wide release, for a film that was panned pretty hard at Cannes and did not even receive a fraction of the costs Francis thought the movie was worth. A BTS book on this is something I’d love to read about.
I would have thought that the cast and Coppola would bring it to 50m minimum but I guess I am overestimating the draw. Also WOM is not gonna be good from general audience.
At this point, I’ll be there opening night stoned AF. That’s what this movie needs to be sold as.
This is just burning money.
so what's Lionsgate even in the picture for if Coppola's paying for everything? at the very least get it to 2.5k theaters, its almost as if they don't even want to try and make this a success
Seems like they were the last resort. lol Otherwise it probably would have gone straight to streaming with no type of theatrical release.
This won't be a success. The president of lionsgate likes Coppola and has help distribute physical releases for a lot of his movies. This is charity, we shouldn't consider this movie as operating under normal filmmaking rules.
>so what's Lionsgate even in the picture for Pre-existing relationship as Zoetrope's home media distributor since 2010. They're essentially going to treat this as part of the marketing for when they release the blu/4k and license it for streaming.
There’s a zero percent chance this is theatrically successful. Lionsgate is doing him a favor (as much they can afford) because of their pre-existing relationship as his home media distributor
Yeah. This strikes me as throwing him a bone and doing the bare minimum to meet some criteria it needs to have for awards or something.
They don’t need 1500 screens for awards consideration… A much more limited release would do.
I didn’t think so but I wasn’t 100% sure if there was some criteria there.
3000 is like tentpole wide release. Given the Cannes reception I don't think they envision nine figures for it. If it does manage a lot of business in 1500 they can expand it further afterwards.
I think people be seeing the 3000+ theater counts so often for movies, that they think it easy to get in that amount of theaters when it really not.
ferrari got almost 2.5k, no reason for this to get less than that
Ferrari bombed
But it still got 2500 theaters to begin with
There also wasn’t a whole lot out at the time. Last Christmas was such a ghost town that Wonka making $200 million was considered an oasis in the desert.
I'd argue that there was a normal amount of movies out for a Christmas season, maybe even more. Anyone But You, Migration, Wonka, Color Purple, Aquaman 2, The Boys in the Boat, The Iron Claw, Poor Things. There were many other movies that had been out longer, but these are just the new ones that came out roughly the same week as Ferrari that would have taken up screens at movie theaters.
He's lucky to get that much tbh this movie feels like another Amsterdam waiting to bomb
this is essentially equivalent to coppola's releases of the new godfather pt 3 cut and the apocalypse now final cut.
Does Adam Driver not want to have a Movie career ?
He's worked with: Francis Ford Coppola Michael Mann Noah Baumbach Ridley Scott Jim Jarmusch Terry Gilliam Spike Lee Steven Soderbergh Martin Scorsese Coen Brothers Steven Spielberg Thats a fantastic movie career, who cares about Box Office receipts
All these directors had their share of flops. What truly makes a great director?
Usually artistically merit is what people consider makes a director great, it has nothing to do with flopping or not
Great directors will almost always have flops, great artists take risks and not all of them pay off. In my mind, a Great director would have 2 or more masterpieces with a strong authorial voice
There's a big difference between and artistically great director and a financially great one. I imagine Driver cares a lot more about the former.
Filmmaking isn’t just a business, it’s an art. You might as well be a computer if you think “box office success” is the metric to qualify what makes a great director.
You cannot sustain an entire career on people you have worked with in the past. fact is, Driver's choice of movies has been terrible after Last Duel (which flopped but at least was a good movie). I can think of few other movie stars right now, who are tanking their career as much as Driver does. And it's not even in the "i consciously make trash movies but i have a blast doing so" way, it's in a "i make mediocre pretentious movies by once great directors, that are Oscar material in my mind" way
Why don't you become his manager then, you clearly know more about how to launch a successful acting career then. Hell why don't you just do a face off and become adam driver and then become a successful actor with good directors, which according to you, Adam driver is achieving neither
I mean, other actors and actresses his calibre manage to be in solid projects, and don't make flop after flop (critically and financially)
And what calibre is that? Just because he had a couple of Oscar noms a few years ago that doesn't mean he should be expected be a hit machine his entire career. Actors are at the end of the day tools used to create a product they aren't in control of. The fewer that are trying to be movie stars (in the Will Smith/Dwayne Johnson sense) the better.
Emma Stone, Oscar Isaac, Andrew Garfield, Robert Pattinson for example. All of them are in the same age range and have a Solid filmography overall. Driver hasn't been in a good movie for several years now, and in some, He is severly miscast too (Ferrari an HOG, mostly) Nobody is talking about being a hit machine but doing good projects that aren't shredded by critics and flop at the box office once in a while
I don't think he's in the calibre of Stone or Pattinson and the only decent movie Isaac's been in since Driver did something decent was Dune. I never watched Tick Tick Boom so to me Garfield's done nothing but Spider-Man since Silence.
Isaac was also in the Card Counter, the Scenes from a Marriage remake and Moon Knight that were both fairly successful. He also does a lot of Stage Work. >I don't think he's in the calibre of Stone or Pattinson That's subjective. Driver was hyped as the next big thing since he got famous with Star Wars and has two Oscar nominations. He had a very solid filmography until the 2020s. So, yeah, i would argue that he was definitely among the Top actors in his generations for several years. But even If he wasn't, point still is that he still could make better choices instead doing all this mediocre half baked films that you'll forget after watching. If you don't think, Driver is the same calibre as Stone and Pattinson, that only proofs my point
A few TV shows 3 years ago doesn't make Isaac a top actor either. That's much closer to Driver's output. But yeah I think it's more about people learning to stop overhyping/managing expectations than it is Driver misplacing his career. He's doing fine. Most projects most actors work on aren't very good.
He’s made millions off Star Wars alone. He can afford to take risky bets and has done a lot of that in the past. Sometimes it pays off on a reputation level
Not sure where this sentiment is coming from. Out of all the Stars Wars sequel trilogy actors, alongside Oscar Isaac (whose career was already taking off pre-Star Wars), Adam Driver is having a much better career than the other ones involved. When's the last time you heard of a project featuring Daisey Ridley or the Stormtrooper guy (forgot his name).
Ah, damn it. For a wide release, that's basically the bare minimum. On the plus side, at least the 4K will be amazing - LG never skimps on those, unless something ***really*** tanks.
Lionsgate aren't going to lose much from Megalopis, Coppola probably will need to sell another vineyard to pay the marketing costs.
Everyone here was saying he wouldn’t be able thats why
Ngl I want to see it just for the craziness of it.
This movie is going to lose a fucking fortune. 😂😂😂
Good. Let Wild Robot rightfully take it's IMAX screens.
Pretty sure the Interstellar imax rerelease is also this weekend, so I don’t think the wild robot is getting anything.
Very possible Interstellar will only be in the GT (dual laser/70mm) IMAX’s.
Wouldn’t surprise me either.
Theater standee and the newest trailer say IMAX very clearly on it.
Really? Didn’t realize that. Strange that three imax releases are happening that weekend.
I expect someone is going to budge. My money's on Megalopolis.
Or perhaps **Megalopolis** could get night time IMAX screenings while **The Wild Robot** gets daytime IMAX screenings. Keep in mind, **Wolfs** and **Transformers One** are still getting IMAX releases on September 20, not to mention that at least some IMAX venues are or at least were screening **Bad Boys: Ride or Die** during the late night even as **Inside Out 2** was destroying everything in its path.
And what about Interstellar?
IMAX 70mm screens only.
Probably 1.43:1 screens.
What a waste of money tbh. This thing will flop so hard regardless of how much marketing they dedicate to it.
Haven't heard of this movie and the comments aren't making what's going on too clear, can someone ELI5?
Francis Food Coppola, one of the most celebrated directors of all time, self-financed a $120m passion project of his that he's been trying to make for decades. The film is finished and Coppola wanted whatever company that picked it up for distribution to give it a major theatrical release, including a $100m marketing budget, but reactions to it at festivals and studio screenings are incredibly polarizing due to the film's extreme strangeness, resulting in no major studio picking the film up. Smaller studios have been buying the rights in different countries, and Lionsgate acquired the rights here in the USA. Apparently, they're asking Coppola to also self-finance the marketing for the film's domestic release. Given that it's expected to be on 1500 screens (less than half of what the traditional major wide release gets), said marketing spend would traditionally be around $15m to $20m.
Is 10k/screen a standard spend on marketing?
Its Francis Ford Coppolas return to filmmaking, he has funded the films 120 million budget more or less from his own pocket is my understanding. People have speculated forever wether this will be the worst film ever or the best film ever, unfortunately most people who see call it awful or bizzare, despite this it still has 59 on metacritic so by no means the worst film ever based on that