Грешники (Sinners)

[DandyAndy]

  

Режиссер  Райан Куглер     

Сценарий  Райан Куглер     

Оператор  Отем Дюральд  

Композитор  Людвиг Горанссон

Продюсеры  Райан Куглер         

              Зинзи Куглер

          Сев Оганян

 

МАЙКЛ Б. ДЖОРДАН

Хейли Стайнфелд • Джек О’Коннелл

  

Делрой Линдо • Вунми Мосаку

  

Джейми Лоусон • Ли Цзюнь Ли

  

Омар Бенсон Миллер • Яо

Лола Кёрк • Кристиан Робинсон

 

Действие сверхъестественного хоррор-триллера о вампирах разворачивается в 1930-х на юге США.

Цитата

Премьера (США) — 7 марта 2025

Изменено 26.11.2024 23:35 пользователем DandyAndy

[Стальной Детройт]

Да, да. Нам же так мало вампиров.

[DandyAndy]

На проект претендуют Sony, WB и Universal

Sony, Warner Bros and Universal are still battling it out for a deal that would allow Coogler to start production this summer. It might also portend a longer relationship for the hitmaker-with-heart filmmaker and his Proximity Media.

 

Here’s what I’ve heard. Coogler’s script is a period genre film that is a true star vehicle for Jordan, who has worked with the director on Fruitvale Station and the Creed and Black Panther franchises. The numbers being thrown around for worldwide rights are large, but not out of line given the commercial track record of both men. I’ve heard the film’s budget is around $90 million. There has also been discussion of potential co-ownership of the IP. As well as potential “put” pictures for Coogler and his Proximity Media.

 

It’s rare to see that the most often mentioned combatants here are traditional studios and not streamers. That’s because the filmmakers are insistent upon a full blown global theatrical play. That wouldn’t work for a streamer by Netflix, which is always in the mix and often bidding the biggest sums to attract top filmmakers. Others like Apple and Amazon have done the theatrical route, but I’m not hearing their names in this battle royal. Some are saying Warner Bros has an edge, but all three studios are still scrapping.

[Dark_Hierophant]

Куглер и Джордан решили попустить Файги тру блейдом?

[Citizen X]

По крайней мере этот фильм точно выйдет, так что Блейд уже побит

[DandyAndy]

Джефф Снайдер

Why Sony "beating" Warner Bros. for the 28 YEARS LATER package can only mean one thing...

WB landed the Ryan Coogler vampire package. And I heard the studio caved on a HUGE deal point in order to do so.

[okami_]

Если огромная сделка, значит точно какая-то история со сто проц франшизным потенциалом. Рип Блейд

[Andrewx]

Если огромная сделка, значит точно какая-то история со сто проц франшизным потенциалом.

История, которая провалится. Ну возможно. В вампиров вообще не верится. Когда последний раз не инди или комедия/сумерки про вампиров в прокате в хороший плюс выходили?

[DandyAndy]

Снайдер оказался прав, проект приобрела Warner Bros

Ожидается, что съемки стартуют в апреле

Details are being kept hush-hush, but according to sources, the project has been described as a period thriller (some have said it takes place in the Jim Crow-era South) involving the undead. Some sources have said it also contains anime influences — Jordan is known to be a massive fan — but it is unclear how those influences are weaved into the project.

[DandyAndy]

Ryan Coogler’s 25-Year Plan

Is the ‘Black Panther’ director’s new deal with Warner Bros.—wherein the copyright for his next project, with Michael B. Jordan, will revert back to him after 25 years—part of a new ownership trend in Hollywood? Or did Coolger just pitch the right executives at the right time?

 

 

Ryan Coogler managed to anger a decent swath of film studio business affairs executives in recent weeks. This is usually a good sign for talent, at least in the short term. It means he got something the studios don’t ever give.

 

If you missed it, the Black Panther and Creed filmmaker has been shopping a project with Michael B. Jordan, his frequent collaborator. It’s a period genre film, supposedly with vampires, or the undead, or something, and I’m told Jordan will play twins—similar to what Tom Hardy did in that 2015 movie Legend. With the help of Coogler’s and Jordan’s publicists, the trades hyped this as one of those “hot packages” that sparked a “bidding frenzy.” On Wednesday, Warner Bros. landed the project for a little over $75 million.

 

I’m less interested in the money—good for Coogler and Jordan, the rare A-level filmmaker and star tandem who are both under 40—though it’s nice to see an original project generate that level of interest from theatrical distributors. What I am interested in, however, was barely mentioned in the news coverage: Coogler’s ability to secure ownership of the film as part of his deal. It’s a ways off—according to two sources, the copyright will revert to Coogler and his Proximity Media after 25 years—but the key fact is: In the late 2040s, Coogler or his heirs will own the movie.

 

This term was apparently very important to Coogler—and a dealbreaker for several bidders. He told studios it was a personal thing; he wanted to know that he’ll eventually have this asset to give to his kids. (His rep declined to comment.) But it’s also potentially very lucrative, and something studios—which, after all, are valued largely on their libraries—absolutely avoid.

 

Let’s say a well-known library film generates $3 million or $4 million per year via TV and streaming licenses, electronic sell-through, and other revenue. (I’m generalizing.) A top filmmaker might get 10 percent or 20 percent of this ancillary revenue, depending on his or her deal. But if the filmmaker owns the film and then farms it out to a studio to license for, let’s say, a 20 percent distribution fee, he or she keeps 80 percent of that revenue. And then, potentially, the filmmaker can sell it someday for a windfall. Obviously a film will generate less revenue in year 25 than it does in year two or three, but some old films still throw off surprising cash. That’s why studios draw a line in the sand on ownership.

 

Streamers, of course, care a bit less about this because they are less concerned with downstream revenue. A filmmaker might be able to sell a movie to an Amazon or Apple as a so-called “one picture license” for five years and then get it back. But when negotiating with a traditional studio, talent reps assume the studio will demand to own it.

 

There are exceptions, of course—usually for talent who bring outside money to the table. Mel Gibson made hundreds of millions of dollars by self-financing The Passion of the Christ. M. Night Shyamalan and Matthew Vaughn own or co-own some of their films. Andrew MacDonald, producer of the original 2002 zombie hit 28 Days Later, recently got the movie back from Disney’s Searchlight division and promptly sold it to Sony, along with a new sequel, 28 Years Later, that will be made with Danny Boyle and Alex Garland directing and writing, respectively, and Peter Rice, the executive behind the original at Searchlight, producing. MacDonald owned the rights, so he could move the old movie and the new project to a new studio.

 

Quentin Tarantino famously has either a 20-year or 25-year reversion in his directing deals, a function of his bankability and the legacy of his arrangements with Miramax and then The Weinstein Co. He actually got both Kill Bill and Jackie Brown back this year, I’m told, and Lionsgate distributes them for a fee. So even though Sony was the sole financier of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, the precedent was there for the studio head, Tom Rothman, to hold his nose and agree to the same reversion. I’m pretty confident in saying Rothman would never do it otherwise, and indeed, I’m told he initially wanted the Coogler project but balked at the ownership demand. (Sony declined to comment.)

 

Back when Tarantino was shopping Once Upon a Time, Warner Bros. executives were nervous about giving him ownership because they were terrified that Chris Nolan would demand the same. Turns out, Nolan doesn’t actually want to own his movies—at least he hasn’t demanded that so far. But that’s the obvious fear. It’s fine to grant ownership when a filmmaker brings money, but Coogler’s team wanted to eventually own the film even though the studio paid to make it—and also is paying him handsomely for his services. (In addition, Coogler’s team first asked for the rights to revert in eight or 10 years, only settling for 25 later in the negotiation process.)

 

Some studios rightly see this as a dangerous precedent. After all, as I said, the true value of films is realized in studio libraries that can be monetized for decades and decades. Is it reckless for Warner Bros. film heads Mike De Luca and Pam Abdy to give that away—even after a quarter-century? Rivals say it fits a pattern of splashy short-term announcements—stuff like the Tom Cruise deal that basically amounts to giving him an office and some money; the Paul Thomas Anderson project with Leo DiCaprio; the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter franchise extensions—designed to lure an eventual suitor to buy Warner Bros. Discovery. Similarly, when De Luca and Abdy ran MGM, they announced project after project with prestige filmmakers designed not to eventually make money, but instead to convince some big company to buy the studio. It worked, and Amazon bit for $8.5 billion. Now, the skeptics argue, they’re doing the same thing with Warners. And they have a boss, David Zaslav, who either doesn’t realize that giving away pieces of the library could damage the long-term business, or he realizes and doesn’t care. After all, will any of the Warners executives be around in five years, much less 25?

 

The flipside, of course, is that Warners got the Coogler movie and the rival studios… didn’t. Sour grapes often turn into accusations of irresponsible dealmaking. But still, if Sony gave ownership to Tarantino (and I assume he will get it on his new project, The Movie Critic), and now Warners is doing it for Coogler, is this officially a trend? I’m sure there are others that I don’t know about. This generation of filmmakers might value ownership more than, say, the first-dollar gross or cash-break even or box office bonuses that previously fueled filmmaker wealth. Every studio is trying to figure out how to compete with streamers to lure top filmmakers. Maybe ownership will become a bigger thing. Or maybe this is just a case of Coogler pitching the right executives at the right time with the right project.

 

[DandyAndy]

7 марта 2025

[DandyAndy]

Джек О’Коннелл ведёт переговоры о роли злодея

[DandyAndy]

Присоединился Делрой Линдо

[DandyAndy]

Присоединилась Джейми Лоусон

[DandyAndy]

Присоединилась Вунми Мосаку

А оператором похоже будет Отем Дюральд Аркпоу, работавшая с Куглером над «Black Panther: Wakanda Forever»

 

Mr Coogler + 65

[Стальной Детройт]

А более точного синопсиса нет?

[DandyAndy]

Стальной Детройт сказал:

А более точного синопсиса нет?

Кроме информации от инсайдеров ничего нет.

Ни студия, ни Куглер её пока не подтверждают.

 

Судя по информации по поиску актеров для массовки, действие разворачивается в 1930-х

[DandyAndy]

Присоединились Хейли Стайнфелд и Омар Бенсон Миллер

[DandyAndy]

Get ready

[DandyAndy]

Присоединилась Ли Цзюнь Ли («Вавилон»)

[VitoKorleone]

сдержанно интересуюсь... Вообще тема действительно вызывает интерес и сэттинг классный в сочетании с жанром, но Джордана не люблю.

[DandyAndy]

[okami_]

Энн Райс встречает Блейда) это мы ждём 

[DandyAndy]

Присоединилась Лола Кёрк

[DandyAndy]

Newcomers Yao, Miles Caton & Peter Dreimanis To Round Out Cast Of Coogler-Jordan Thriller