New David Lynch Film

[Michael Struthers]

to be called "Inland Empire", shot on sony pd-150's. Lynch also says he is done with film

 

What do you make of that? :blink:

[Dan Salzmann]

Sounds odd! What is the source of this information?

[Fredrik Broman]

Sounds odd! What is the source of this information?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Variety had an article about it:

http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=ca...id=VR1117922566

[jasarsenault]

Maybe I misread the article, but where did it say he was using 150's? It mentioned digital video but I didnt see any mention of what kind.

[JONATHANEDWARDS]

sound's like its a crewless project. :huh:

My guess lynch is getting old and views this as a easy way to shoot his project.

[JONATHANEDWARDS]

sound's like its a crewless project. :huh:

My guess lynch is getting old and views this as a easy way to shoot his project.

[Rachel Oliver]

sound's like its a crewless project.  :huh:

My guess lynch is getting old and views this as a easy way to shoot his project.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hi;

 

Yeah maybe, or maybe David Lynch is an artist 1st and film maker 2nd and thus he works with whatever tools take him to his artistic goal. I think after so many years of making some very very strong work he's more than proven his passion and perfectionist trates, he does not seem like a guy that would just shoot video coz he could not be bothered to work hard anymore....

 

Olly

[Dan Salzmann]

A director of David Lynch's stature could work in any format he chose to. Why would he be working less hard if he shot in video? Perhaps he is afyer a "lo-fi" look. He seems to be a perfectionist so why would he "drop the ball" at this stage?

Anyway, he has us guessing, again.

[Mark Allen]

He seems to be a perfectionist so why would he "drop the ball" at this stage?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

His perfectionism leads him also to being a very hands on director who likes to do things himself - so I think perhaps he is wanting ultimate autonomy in his work at this point - bring his efforts back to his roots as a painter who simply wanted his images to move and make sound.

[Michael Struthers]

His perfectionism leads him also to being a very hands on director who likes to do things himself - so I think perhaps he is wanting ultimate autonomy in his work at this point - bring his efforts back to his roots as a painter who simply wanted his images to move and make sound.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

He's not shooting it himself. He's brought in some people to shoot steadicam stuff. His distributors haven't even seen the script *L* Now that's clout.

 

 

When you have a poor image, there's lots more room to dream."

[Matt Pacini]

A director of David Lynch's stature could work in any format he chose to...."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sure I'll be drawn and quartered here for not bowing to the David Lynch altar, but I'd have to seriously disagree with that.

As much as I like some of D. Lynch films, he hasn't made anybody any money for a long, long time, and that's what get's you 'clout" in this business, not just the fact you make insteresting films.

 

I think he's probably having a hard time getting anyone to invest in his films anymore, at least to invest large sums of cash.

 

Here are the total revenues of the films he's done for the last 13 years (per www.boxofficemojo.com):

 

Mulholland Drive - $20,112,339

The Straight Story - $6,203,044

Lost Highway - $3,675,201

Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me - $4,160,851

 

Those numbers are WAY less than the cost to make & market those films. Not even close. We may all love David Lynch, but I guarantee you, the bankers don't.

 

MP

[Nate Downes]

You hit the nail on the head, I think. His films have been consistantly been lackluster at the box office.

[Max Jacoby]

Looking at the numbers, surely these must be the grosses from the US market only, not worldwide?

[Brad Grimmett]

Looking at the numbers, surely these must be the grosses from the US market only, not worldwide?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sure they're just US numbers, and they also don't include video sales, which is now as big a market as theatrical distribution. I would bet that at the very least most of his films break even. He wouldn't continue to get financing if that wasn't the case.

[Sam Wells]

I'm sure they're just US numbers, and they also don't include video sales, which is now as big a market as theatrical distribution. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Or bigger. Theatrical is often the commercial for non-theatrical.

 

So of course Canal + is interested....

 

-Sam

[Matt Pacini]

I put the box office mojo link in there so you guys could check out the source for yourself, because I knew nobody would believe me.

 

The numbers are NOT just US.

Some of these films don't show an overseas #, which I took to mean they didn't get theatrical release overseas, but Mulholland drive, for instance did have worldwide $$$ in there.

So even though that film in particular got tons of press & hype (and I liked it, by the way), his films just don't appeal to a wide range of people.

Ask everyone you know that IS NOT involved in film in any way about David Lynch, and I'll bet they have no idea who he is, so obviously they aren't seeing his films because he directed them.

 

MP

[Nate Downes]

I'm still of the opinion that HD is nothing more than another emultion, a different tool to deliver results with. It may replace film in some areas, but not in all.

[Josh Hill]

Matt,

 

If he made 20mil on Mullholland Dr., then he made his money back (according to IMDB who says the budget was 15 million). Of course, on the other movies you named he has made nothing back, in fact lost quite a bit of money, but there is something different about David Lynch that allows people to disregard, I think, these losses.

 

Many people look at David Lynch as less of a filmmaker and more of an artist, and in that light he is probably being funded similarly to how artists are quite often funded (only speculation on my part). He is given the money not to make it back, but rather to make art. If he turns a profit, good deal, and if he doesn't whoever gave him that money is happy to be a part of the final product.

 

I like David Lynch, in a sense, but I'm not the biggest David Lynch fan. I like how he puts passion into each and every one of his projects, but sometimes it seems like he's doing crazy, over-the-top weird kind of stuff not because it is what he likes, but because it is what is expected of him. Of course, this is probably wrong because he does seem utterly insane sometimes.

 

Later,

 

Josh

[Matt Pacini]

Matt,

 

If he made 20mil on Mullholland Dr., then he made his money back (according to IMDB who says the budget was 15 million). ..."

 

Josh

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wrong.

A film needs to gross TWICE its budget before it even STARTS making any money.

That's why this "box office gross" statement you're always hearing is almost irrelevant.

You're ignoring the fact that the exhibitor(distributors/theaters) are making money too. (It's not just popcorn that they're making money off. They get part of that ticket price too).

 

So in fact, Mullholland Drive actually did not make any money, nor I suspect, have any David Lynch films, with the possible exception of The Elephant Man, but I'm just guessing that film made money.

Basically, he's a really interesting filmmaker who loses people many millions of dollars if they're brave/daring/crazy enough to finance his work.

Sad, but true.

And I'm not referring to "many people" in any of these posts, I'm referring to studios and other organizations that fund films.

Clearly Lynch has his audience. It's just not very big, that's all.

 

MP

[Sam Wells]

Basically, he's a really interesting filmmaker who loses people many millions of dollars if they're brave/daring/crazy enough to finance his work.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'd like to meet these brave/daring/crazy people. I suspect they don't exist.

 

Really I don't think anyone's loosing money here overall. They get it from pre-sales to TV, DVD etc.

 

In any case, personally I don't care too much what his films gross or any what any other films make. If I like the film I like it, if I don't I don't. If I read a book I don't know what the salse figures are.(Although if it's in the remainder bins it tells you something...)

 

Here it looks like he put up his own cash. Will Canal + cover it ? I've got no idea, but they can probably partner up with other non-US TV entities etc. I certainly have seen their name on movies that did not set any box office records.

 

Maybe Dune lost serious money... but then again Dino DeLaurentis never hit me up for subway fare :D

 

-Sam

[Matt Pacini]

I don't care how much a film makes either (which is why I'm not running out to watch Star Wars; revenge of the Cash Cow).

My statements were addressing the comments about Lynch supposedly having so much clout that he could basically do anything he wants, and there are people lining up to throw money at him, when I think the opposite is true.

 

Whether or not anything he's made "actually" made any money or not, I'm not sure, but those are damn low numbers, and a couple films have surprisingly low numbers.

Mullholland Drive had a phenomenal amount of PR & hype behind it, and still it only did $20 mil.

Not too impressive from a $$$ point of view, so I suspect after that, he's being mostly ignored by the studios.

 

MP

[Keith Mottram]

Wrong.

A film needs to gross TWICE its budget before it even STARTS making any money. 

That's why this "box office gross" statement you're always hearing is almost irrelevant.

You're ignoring the fact that the exhibitor(distributors/theaters) are making money too. (It's not just popcorn that they're making money off. They get part of that ticket price too).

 

So in fact, Mullholland Drive actually did not make any money, nor I suspect, have any David Lynch films, with the possible exception of The Elephant Man, but I'm just guessing that film made money.

Basically, he's a really interesting filmmaker who loses people many millions of dollars if they're brave/daring/crazy enough to finance his work.

Sad, but true.

And I'm not referring to "many people" in any of these posts, I'm referring to studios and other organizations that fund films.

Clearly Lynch has his audience. It's just not very big, that's all.

 

MP

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

WRONG. the twice as much figure is an average figure that money men chuck around and is completely dependant on amount of prints struck and amount of P & A. A film like Sith for example creates a massive amount of prints for a simultanious release, it also has to spend a huge amount on primetime and prime site publicity. A niche film such as a David Lynch movie relies on word of mouth and specialist less expensive advertising. At any rate virtually all of Mulholland Drive's entire budget was paid for in pre-sales, his support from Europe and Japan means that he can basically ask for cash without a script. The other thing to remember is that DVD and PPV would double the box office total. Mullholland Drive made money, not enough to interest a Hollywood studio but enough to generate a decent budget from his backers- most of whom have been with him for a long time. Oh and I didn't see it whilst I was there but the buzz from the promo at Cannes was massive.

[Guest Roman]

I'm sure they're just US numbers, and they also don't include video sales, which is now as big a market as theatrical distribution.  I would bet that at the very least most of his films break even.  He wouldn't continue to get financing if that wasn't the case.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Domestic: $ 7,220,243 35.9%

+ Overseas: $12,892,096 64.1%

source: boxofficemojo.com

AND

US Video Rentals

Cumulative: $20,600,000 (as of 07 July 2002)

source: imdbpro.com

 

add DVD purchases, overseas video rentals and numerous VOD, cable, PPV, TV deals = Mulholland Drive made money for sure. even with the budget of $15M!

[Shawn Mielke]

He is Godard going into his video phase. He recognizes the immediacy of video in terms of artistic growth, and will experiment for a while, as all artists worth a damn should. His last film, Mulholland Drive, clearly spells out a criticism of the industry and it's vapid world and product that Lynch found himself in the middle of, and he is ready do things differently. He'll probably come back to film, but his thoughts and feelings are elsewhere for the moment. I'm willing to bet on this.

[Mark Allen]

add DVD purchases, overseas video rentals and numerous VOD, cable, PPV, TV deals = Mulholland Drive made money for sure. even with the budget of $15M!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Just a note for clarity. The budget figure at boxofficemojo and imdbpro doesn't include marketing which is going to be a large ambigious number - 10 to 30 million. Ambigious because if a movie is successful costs from other movies will be snuck into it. Note that Titanic has yet to make a dime in profit according to the record. For many years the rule of thumb has been that it takes 3 times the budget of a movie to show a profit once you include prints and ads (including what people other than the producers make as profit).

 

That said - profit is made at every step - especially if it is a studio movie. But most people are making a salary off the movie, rental companies are making money (which is nice for the studio if the studio is the rental company) and so on.

Edited May 25, 2005 by Mark Douglas