It is arguably Scorsese's least accessible film since Bringing Out the Dead and it does not have the starpower of DiCaprio.

However, Marty's name is a draw by itself now. Each of his last six films made more than $70 million. Four made more than $100 million. And it will have strong Oscar buzz.

I haven't even seen the trailer yet and I've heard nobody talk about it, so I'm going to say no at the moment but it really depends on Oscar nods.

You realize that early word is very positive, right?

Magnus having read and scorched-earth hating the Endō novel is a longstanding KJ curiosity.

No way. People won't care.

I'm gonna say no, but barely. I see a ~$45 million total, give or take a couple million.

Enough for me to say yes.

But that stat is a little misleading. His last six films were The Wolf of Wall Street, Hugo, Shutter Island, The Departed, The Aviator, and Gangs of New York. Five of which starred Leonardo DiCaprio and all six of which were attainable films. For comparisons to Silence, you need to be looking at Kundun and The Last Temptation of Christ, both of which didn't even make $10m. Now, I'm not for a second suggesting Silence will make less than $10m, but it's also not a given to make $70m.

Kundun, such a film I pretty much don't know exists...and yeah that did just 5.7m when being released with a same date as Silence. Hmm...yeah, Silence really might not do well taking that into account. Because Silence seems to be good, I still expect it to top 50m, but I'm a lot less certain about it now.

nope - it's a nearly three hour movie about jesuit priests in 17th century japan. even if it wins BP, why would it make more than, say, spotlight?

Couldn't it appeal to Christians?

Let's see...

Wolf of Wall Street
Shutter Island
The Departed
Aviator
Gangs of New York

those seem to have something in common...

oh yeah and Hugo. which was literally propelled by being a kids movie around thanksgiving/christmas.

What Algren said.

Look, people. I said it a few years ago. Leo is THE box office draw. (although The Rock may be making a move to join him)

But that is why I also did not put the benchmark at $70 million, but at $50 million. Of course Leo was a major draw. The deliberation here is whether Scorsese's name alone has become a draw by now. Afterall Tarantino carried The Hateful Eight to $50+ million without Best Picture buzz.

There Will Be Blood, a very inaccessible film as well without major starpower, adjusts to $48 million. Close enough.

And the difference between Spotlight and this? Scorsese is the difference.

I don't think it will, no. Spotlight didn't even make $50M despite a Best Picture win and being way more accessible. Scorsese's name alone is not enough to push it over.

I think There Will Be Blood and Munich are fair comparisons for why this should at least do $40+ million. Munich had Spielberg's name, but it was also hella dark, very long, and had no bankable stars. There Will Be Blood was basically a one-man-show mood piece with a bizarre and crazy ending. But both still managed to do well off the back of their director's prestige and Oscar love. Pretty sure Silence will be getting at least 6-7 nominations (including Picture and Director), possibly more if the tech branches really go crazy for it.

That's why I believe that $50 million is a good benchmark for it. Scorsese's name and a bunch of Oscar noms should make sure that it will draw older crowds looking for high quality filmmaking.

As for the Spotlight comparison, I think being released in the heat of the awards season (as opposed to the beginning of November is a helpful factor). I'd also argue that Scorsese's name is a bigger draw than the entire cast of Spotlight combined.

you guys overestimate how many people will go see a martin scorsese film based solely on his name. plus this is about as far away as you can get from typical scorsese fare like wolf of wall street or goodfellas (which, btw, made less than $50m - 25 years ago, yes, but still).

if this breaks $50m i'll start using capital letters again.

Exactly. Scorsese isn't a draw for this type of film. When people see his name in a trailer, they want to see some gangster stuff or Leonardo DiCaprio as well. If not, then people are not interested. If the trailer played but instead of showing Scorsese's name it showed Spielberg's name, then this film would make so much more.

How wide does this go though? If this is going to be a 2,000+ wide release, I can see this edging close to $50m. If not, $30m.

Yes but barely.

It sounds very, very non-commercial: long, deliberately paced, hyper-grim/violent, with a bit of Béla Tarr or at least Robert Bresson in its DNA. I read reports of people leaving halfway through in NYC and L.A. and people in the lobby outside guild screenings calculating how much time is left.

Believe it might be a Tree of Life- or Inherent Vice-type deal in regard to transitioning to mainstream play.

Nah. Doesn't seem to have much appeal as either a populist movie or an oscar contender. Only the most hardcore of Scorsesiacs will turn up.

No.

Nope. I agree with Algren maybe if it had Spielberg's or hell even Eastwood's names attached to it than it would do more, but since it's Scorsese and not the kind of movie general audiences usually expect from him than it's potential becomes more limited.