MovieChat Forums > Knight of Cups (2016) Discussion > Is Terrence Malick the most powerful man...

Is Terrence Malick the most powerful man in Hollywood?

posted 8 years ago by nick_reynolds2011
27 replies | jump to latest

His films don't even make money anymore. In fact, they lose money...lots of it. Tree of Life had a budget of 32 mil and grossed not even half that. To the Wonder didn't even break a mil. Same thing with Knight of Cups. Incredible when you think about it, I mean considering the name power alone among those casts.

Heck if you ask the average person about any of these films they in all likelihood haven't seen nor heard of them.

Not that Malick cares...in fact I think he prefers that these films have niche audiences as opposed to being mainstream. Clearly he's not doing this for the money.

That said, how do these experimental films he keeps rolling out get bankrolled and green lighted? I mean it's not like he's rounding out these films with no name actors...these are some pretty powerful, deep casts in these movies. He virtually gets any actor/actress he wants, and his films are a virtual lock to lose money nowadays -- yet he's still able to push out one after the other now.

You have to be able to wield a whole lot of power to to do what he does.

[–] DotTheEyes 8 years ago

Part of it A-list actors agreeing to be in his films for significantly reduced salaries, so they can have the singular experience and be associated with a prestigious name. Woody Allen benefits similarly.

[–] nick_reynolds2011 8 years ago

Yeah very true.

That said, what about the people putting up the money behind these projects? Or is he funding these himself?

Because it's not like these movies (Tree of Life, To the Wonder, Knight of Cups) are even breaking even...they're losing millions. And I'm guessing that at this point they (whoever "they" are) have a pretty idea going in that these films aren't going to be conducive to making a profit, or even close to it.

[–] DotTheEyes 8 years ago

It is an interesting question. "Terrence Malick" is not a real human being, just an elaborate money-laundering mob scheme.

Seriously, though, I expect the answer involves a complex system of foreign pre-sales based on the star power he draws in.

[–] Protozoid 8 years ago

If the distributors weren't so cowardly, they would have happily distributed Malick's last two films and promoted them like prestige films. Prestige films always lose money. They are meant to win respect. The real reason Malick's films don't get distribution is because he's changing the paradigm. His movies are the antithesis of everything commercial. They don't want him to be successful because they don't want all of their top stars working for free and developing integrity in the process.

[–] nick_reynolds2011 8 years ago

They don't want him to be successful

I'm pretty slow so I just wanna be clear on this:

You're saying that the distributors purposely want Malick films to tank and lose millions? I get that not all films are meant to kill it when it comes to box office numbers, and I do agree that Malick's final goal is critical respect as opposed to what kind of numbers his films put up...but still, at the end of the day, isn't it always a bad thing if a film is losing millions of dollars?? Isn't that bad for the distributors as well?

[–] sly_3 8 years ago

I'm not even sure he cares about critics. This didn't do well with them, and hits next will be as similarly obtuse. He creates art and likely doesn't give a $#!+ what anyone thinks.

donkeywranglertothestars.com
@sly_3

[–] mpboylanjr-54038 8 years ago

Honestly, besides a couple of films he isn't close to the best filmmaker out there. There is no way that whom ever is bank rolling this stuff does not care about losing millions of dollars either. The fact that people say that is ridiculous !!
How was this movie even that much to make ? No SE or anything remotely good except the actors whom don't even need to be in it because it's nonsense anyway lol.
It is a good point that OP states. Why let him just make these films ,that if they cost so much , and are just losing money, are they in fact just letting him make? Beats me , but this film sucked just like his last few IMHO.

THERES NO ROOM IN MY CIRCUS TENT FOR YOU!!!!

[–] WoodCheese 8 years ago

Recent Malick's films don't do well with anybody - not critics, not movie goers, not even his peers. The only people that say to like them are the pretentious hipsters wanting to sound smart. They're an interesting experience but as movies, they don't work; they're not good films.

[–] DaveBowman2001 8 years ago

Quite possible. Interesting theory.

At the very least the distribution is terrible for his latest films. There's little to no advertising or publicity. TTOL was in theaters near me for a week and abruptly ended. To the wonder I forget. Had to see it on DVD. KOC was only in one theater within 50 miles of me and it's a theater I hate going to, so I'm resorting to watching on DVD (tonight hopefully). Target, Best buy, Walmart don't carry DVD stock in stores...only online and I have no Blue Ray player. So in a nutshell, I had to jump through hoops just to see this one. Only the independent theaters will even dare show his films and not all of them at that.

[–] thepalestfire 8 years ago

According to The Number TTOL made $61,721,826 worldwide and another $3,807,851 in domestic Blu-ray sales.

Citing NASA as experts on these matters is like citing the KK on matters of race relations.
- rj

[–] mtocm-139-588081 8 years ago

Where's Number TTOL?

[–] zuloworks 8 years ago

It seems funny when the viewer takes the rule of an accounted ...

Why is the gross of your concern?

[–] nick_reynolds2011 8 years ago

More curiosity than anything. Just kinda fascinates me how most directors, after a fail or two, would probably have a tough time getting any type of monetary backing for another project.

Malick though appears bulletproof. Perhaps that speaks to his greatness and aura, I guess?

[–] zuloworks 8 years ago

More curiosity than anything. Just kinda fascinates me how most directors, after a fail or two, would probably have a tough time getting any type of monetary backing for another project.

Malick though appears bulletproof. Perhaps that speaks to his greatness and aura, I guess?

Yes, that could be. And a big 'hail' to the trusting believers.

It is a good thing to finance a project that has something do say about the world and not only to watch the possible payback value.

I would not be happy in a world that is commanded (only) by cashback values. They may be tempted to kill all the old people that are of no 'use' any longer ...

[–] nick_reynolds2011 8 years ago

It is a good thing to finance a project that has something do say about the world and not only to watch the possible payback value.

I would not be happy in a world that is commanded (only) by cashback values.

Oh I absolutely agree 100%. It just seems that it's kind of a rarity in these times, to say the least, where so much across the board, film or otherwise, is mainly profit driven.

That's why I wondered aloud in the opening post as to how powerful Malick is in the industry. His films clearly aren't designed to bring in big profit, and that's clear just by the extremely limited promotions of his films alone. Yet he's still able to put together deep and powerful casts for these projects. It says a lot about him and his reputation that he's able to do that.

[–] BodegaBay63 8 years ago

Honestly, I think investors or maybe studios are getting tax breaks. Whoever is footing the bill wants to show it as a loss. Use Boll's films are financed the same way. Personally, if i was looking for a tax haven/break I would invest in a Malick film. At least, it's not a Uwe Boll film. Am I right?

[–] kidjay83 8 years ago

probably the foreign markets who praise this crap also in hollywood everyone gets paid up front so theres really no incentive to make something great .As long as their all paid it dont really matter what money the movie see's malick is a hack i don't care what these limp wristed hipster douchebags think .he's a con artists who shovels his *beep* to his soft headed audience knowing that regardless he is going to get paid for it .It shows that it doesnt think very much of the people watching his drivel if he will just feed them anything .

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.

[–] shadow-05216 8 years ago

You are a dumb person, sorry.

[–] Ambedo 8 years ago

Agreed. This guy criticizes hipsters and then has a hipster quote in his sig lmao

[–] terrytsilvester 8 years ago

Your English is horrendous.

[–] JackBluegrass 8 years ago

Terrence Malick not only employs the finest acting talent, but also the finest behind-the-camera talent. For example. Emmanuel Lubezki, as cinematographer, has become VERY well known for repeatedly performing his photography.

It appears to me that some well-known people in the arts and crafts of filmmaking (producers, production design, editors, casting directors, etc.) often want to work on his films simply for the bragging rights.

E pluribus unum

[–] Ambedo 8 years ago

I've been wondering the same. Doesn't bother me as I love his films, but how DOES he find the financers for his projects? What were the budgets of To the Wonder and Knight of Cups? They lost millions at the very least.

I've heard he's independently wealthy. Also, his last 3 films (Including TOL) have all been privately financed.

[–] nick_reynolds2011 8 years ago

Yeah I think you're right. I think his films -- these days anyway, are privately financed. I think he does these projects for himself and for his most ardent of fans. Were any of these latest films (Tree of Life/Knight of Cups/To the Wonder) even promoted? I personally didn't see a single thing for any of the three films as far as promotion. Heck I didn't even know Tree of Life existed until I saw it on HBO one day.

[–] Ambedo 8 years ago

I remember seeing a poster for Tree of Life when I was at a theater many many years ago. I was probably 12 or 13. Thought it was an IMAX documentary. I can understand the lack of promotion for his films, particularly TOL/ Knight of cups, how would one even advertise those? His period films provide a much better foundation for that.

I'm glad he gets to make the films he wants to, but I hope he can make one more great movie before he goes. From the recent interview he gave and what I've read on here - Radegund is going to be a lot more 'traditional'. It'll also be the first film he's done in a while with Emmanuel Lubezki, so I wonder how that'll turn out.