Leave the World Behind

Caquas

My guess is >€50 Million but you’re right - the single location, limited cast and (impressive) CGI should have kept this closer to €20 Million

Why do big names get these parts when others could give equal or better performances for a fraction of the cost? Perhaps we need “stars” to convince us to watch. But then we see the star, not the character. Do we see Amanda the misanthrope or Julia Roberts cast against type?

Not even sure how to describe Ethan Hawke’s character. A professor of media studies but he says almost nothing original and seems weak in the face of disaster until suddenly he steps into the middle of the fight.

This kind of expensive nothingness suggests that the Hollywood strikes were not the product of hard-pressed workers demanding justice. There are a lot of very privileged people in Hollywood and the streamers are flushing money through the system so that quantity is swamping quality.

Remember when there was a big fuss because a movie that went straight to streaming was nominated for an Oscar? Oh, what a terrible blow to the artistic values of the big screen film-makers! Funny how we hear no more about this, now that the Hollywood royalty are getting lucrative gigs long after they were able to open a movie.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121510089#Comment_121510089

Why do big names get these parts when others could give equal or better performances for a fraction of the cost? Perhaps we need “stars” to convince us to watch. But then we see the star, not the character. Do we see Amanda the misanthrope or Julia Roberts cast against type?

Answered your own question there: as long as Hollywood has been a thing there have been "star driven" pictures; this film's not remotely unique in this respect. And it often depends on the actor; the great actors can trick your brain into thinking "oh, that's So-And-So"

This kind of expensive nothingness suggests that the Hollywood strikes were not the product of hard-pressed workers demanding justice. There are a lot of very privileged people in Hollywood and the streamers are flushing money through the system so that quantity is swamping quality.

Not sure I understand this logic at all: there are a lot of privileged people in Hollywood but the vast majority of those making the things are not privileged - quite the opposite and working off low rates, and minimal profit sharing (if at all); and the strike was born from the fact streamers like Netflix were trying to shrink or destroy even those basic commission options and dues owed to the majority that aren't Julia Roberts. (part of the logistics of the Strike was a war-chest & financial fund, built through Union Fees, that was given out to the striking actors who were jobbing and taking the financial hit). Maybe let a film's credits run to the end to get a sense of how large the iceberg goes. Unless I'm misreading your comments?

homerun_homer

The film feels like it is more worthy of a Black Mirror episode than it's own movie. I think it would have served it better if presented that way than as the big new Netflix film. It would still rub people up the wrong way but at least you can let the next episode play and move on.

Caquas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121510369#Comment_121510369

I didn't answer my own question - I posed a couple of alternative possibilities.

The era of "star driven" pictures is long gone in cinemas and it won't last much longer on the streaming platforms if this show is typical.

There are only a handful of mega-stars (Di Caprio, Cruise,...) who can reliably "open" a movie these days (without a franchise). Julia Roberts hasn't had that power for 20 years, Ethan Hawke never had. Netflix may pay them big bucks to get a buzz about their production and they might drive clicks in the first week but what matters is attracting/retaining subscribers. Glossy productions that fizzle out like this one are a sure-fire way to lose subscribers who are already squeezed by the surfeit of alternative platforms.

You're right, I should have looked at the closing credits. Even by today's bloated standards, they are outlandish for a production of modest scope - a full 10 minutes worth and that's without any of the big names from the opening credits (where the Obamas get a separate screen from the ordinary "Executive Producers", who are not to be confused with the Associate Producers or even the actual Producers, who include Julia Roberts, a sure sign of a vanity project). There's a squad of assistants to the producers, plus gangs of "production assistants" and a battalion of "Production Support". The platoon of "Grips" is dwarfed by the army of visual effects.

But not a single person to shout Stop!

Normally, strikes are the workers' response to hard times - pay-cuts, layoffs - but money has been flooding into Hollywood. I don't blame the writers and actors looking for a bigger slice but they should look in the rear-view mirror. A reality-check will come sooner rather than later. But before then, is there any chance I could get an Executive Producer gig on one of these shows. I'd love to shoot the breeze with Julia or Meryl and they'd love me 'cos I'd get them the big bucks and top billing, just like old times.

When money floods Hollywood, this is the kind of BS that ensues

https://screenrant.com/who-is-carl-rinsch-netflix-55-million-conquest-show/

nomoedoe

You’d think the kid would of noticed her mother was Chandlers girlfriend in friend's

aidanodr

Watched it last night, here is my review of sorts / thoughts the following day:

Yes plot holes abound BUT we watched it accepting these and taking a wider view of any message it was offering. Things like how people might react to this new reality. Human selfishness. Look after no. 1 / family .. obvious, interacting with others when thrown together unwittingly.

Certain apocolypse type scene later ( a skyline scene, after this scene watch out for TV screen messages as to what this could be ) gave indication of what the new reality is to be ( another movie perhaps? or that movie is left in your own imagination to direct? ) .. no going back now type thing.

I found the scenes with daughter throughout film interesting. ( Maybe its where the name of the book/film came from? LEAVE THE WORLD BEHIND? ) Sheldon from big bang theory came to mind .. needing closure at all costs, even in frivolous things and this closure as a sort of familiar comfort with the up and coming turmoil & uncertainty all around. Again a form of Selfishness?

WE, the viewer also did get closure, I think anyway, we could see with the many hints on screens and what certain people talked of .. this all was only going one way.

You really have to WATCH this film, every minute of it. Concentrate. What is said, the unsaid, even unspoken scenes give hints. Not a movie you could just go out of room for a minute & come back missing nothing.

I liked the cinematography - nod to Hitchcock me thinks. I liked the build up of & the constant dread, threat mood of the film and for us it still hangs around after in the mind, even today. A disconcerting feeling.

Re the Tesla scene + the mention of cuba / Havana Syndrome .. I thought these were interesting nods to actual events that did happen and injected into the film to acentuate its reality as our real reality right now. They ended up playing a part in the creation of the new reality we face at the end of the film.

This film and the upcoming CIVIL WAR film - interesting that the apocolytic / dystopian genre here is especially concentrating around war, societal breakdown and the world order breaking down when we are potentially sort of living the beginning of this at the moment. Certainly those in Ukraine and Gaza are living this reality now BUT the film is showing what this reality could be like when it comes to our front door ... Are these films prescient?

Do things in this film chime with YOU and how YOU may react to such a new reality, not of your choosing?

Caquas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121525853#Comment_121525853

WE, the viewer also did get closure, I think anyway, we could see with the many hints on screens and what certain people talked of .. this all was only going one way.

You really have to WATCH this film, every minute of it. Concentrate. What is said, the unsaid, even unspoken scenes give hints. Not a movie you could just go out of room for a minute & come back missing nothing.

I got no closure.

There were lots of heavy-handed warnings of a coming apocalypse and a series of major crashes, loud noises and animal weirdness. We got Islamic terrorists, the North Koreans, a massive cyber-hack. These were not subtle hints. A massive leaflet drop of “Death to America”. Planes crashing out of the sky.

The characters were shape-shifters. Was the ownner’s daughter the most obnoxious woman or a truth-teller? What was Ethan Hawke’s character, a clueless academic or the man of true courage? Julia Roberts went from closet racist to inter-racial seductress in one dance.

And after all that drama and terror, we got what?….Friends!!!

I could go on but, like this movie, I will cut it here.

Carol25

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121528757#Comment_121528757

Somebody just doesn’t get it…

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121511538#Comment_121511538

Normally, strikes are the workers' response to hard times - pay-cuts, layoffs - but money has been flooding into Hollywood. I don't blame the writers and actors looking for a bigger slice but they should look in the rear-view mirror.

That's a misunderstanding of what the Actors and Writers were striking over. Money might be flooding into Hollywood, but it wasn't going near the lower tier of actors and writing staff who were being routinely jipped out of their fair dues. Which only got worse with streaming upending the old model of royalties and residuals generated from repeat broadcasts (as an example, the creator of successful TV show Supernatural has never got a single dollar from Netflix - despite the show routinely being one of the most watched on the service in the US). Many actors and writers earn their regular subsistence income from these "residuals " albeit the amounts can be tiny. It was also why Netflix are so cancel happy; certain renumeration didn't kick in til after a 3rd season of something IIRC - so shít got cancelled before people got paid more.

This was "crumbs on the table" stuff that Netflix etc were trying to avoid payment for. And with shít like AI there was a real sense that the value of a jobbing background actor would be eroded completely (reports of actors getting facial scans so studios could just reuse CGI versions of said actors without paying them or contractual consent). Media outlets are already trying to sneak AI written articles into their publications - you can guarantee Hollywood was gonna do same with their scripts. These strikes were pro-active towards cuts that were coming.

These were people whose power does not afford the ability to look in the "rear view mirror" in any case, by dint of the fact they're jobbing staff. And this film is far from the worst thing Hollywood ever produced so a little perspective is useful here. Maybe nobody shouted "stop!" because nobody thought they were making crap. Few studios intentionally make rubbish - even Tommy Wiseau thought he was making pearls.

Caquas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121528769#Comment_121528769

And someone else has nothing

Caquas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121515177#Comment_121515177

That’s it! Julia Robert wasn’t just Chandeler’s girlfriend, she and Mathew Perry had a thing until he dumped her - 12 years ago! No, only messing.

Still, here’s a good rule of thumb - nothing good comes from giving the star an “Executive Producer” credit.

It’s a bit like “player/manager” (are there any left?)

johnny_ultimate

A star having an ‘executive producer’ credit is common and fairly routine, I’d have thought. Just means they played a key role in getting the film made / financed, but maybe not quite as hands on as a full producer credit.

Cate Blanchett has one for Tár, for example, and that was a widely celebrated film and performance. Ditto Di Caprio and Killers of the Flower Moon. That’s two recent high-profile ones, but countless other examples.

Caquas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121528857#Comment_121528857

Yeah, it’s seems to be standard operating procedure now and there’s bound to be some good amongst all the dross. But does it actually ever help improve the film? It is a clear conflict of interest. The Executive Producer’s job is to deliver the show on time and in budget. The star’s job is to be the biggest star they can be.

I suppose the plethora of Producers (Executive, Assistant or Otherwise) should keep this conflict in check but what if the Obamas are also on board? In any event, no one could shout stop and Netflix is landed with a high-profile bomb.

johnny_ultimate

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121529050#Comment_121529050

If a good film gets made because or partially because a star is on board as executive producer, then yes I would say it does help improve the film.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121529050#Comment_121529050

Executive Producers in film are often nominal roles with minimal impact on production; TV show executive producers would tend to be more involved. Some execs are more integral than others but it's not a rule; In film it'd be producers who might wield power or influence more directly.

And as far as it can be ascertained, this hasn't been a bomb. Far from it by the looks of things though we might know for sure when the half yearly stats roll around again.

For the second week in a row, “Leave the World Behind” was the most-watched title on Netflix. The apocalyptic thriller starring Julia Roberts, Ethan Hawke, Mahershala Ali and Myha’la reached 44.9 million views from Dec. 11-17, its first full week of availability after its Dec. 8 premiere. That’s a slight increase from the week before, when it racked up 41.7 million views in its first three days on Netflix.

https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/netflix-top-10-streaming-ratings-1235697082/

Caquas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121528776#Comment_121528776

I don’t have any expertise regarding show biz contracts but my point remains: money is flooding into Hollywood and the strike was about sharing out a larger pie. It was not about promoting excellence in film-making.

If the streamers keep insulting their audience with stinkers like this, the pie will shrink very rapidly.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121529187#Comment_121529187

Your point is confusing. When is a strike ever about "promoting excellence"? Of course it was about financial equity - it's a Union, not an arts council. You're putting at the feet something for which the union and its members have no responsibility for. You might as well criticise the Strike for not solving climate change for the relevance it might have.

I've watched plenty of shíte movies with great performances, and vice versa; actors have a job to do, they do the job - it's not on them to "fix" broken scripts, FX, budgets or films. They'd not have much work if they walked from everything that offended their sensibilities! And when actors have dictated films it has tended to be a disaster through rampaging ego.

And in any case, the film has had lots of eyeballs as far as stats say, and the reviews skew middling on Letterboxd; if you didn't like the film then fair enough - you clearly hated it? - but I don't see any indication this has been a derided "bomb" or widely hated either. I doubt in 6 months anyone will remember having watched it. It's far from emblematic of any problems with Hollywood.

If you wanna criticise waste at netflix, there's plenty of ammunition with Red Notice, The Adam Project, The Grey Man and all the other over-budgeter blockbusters and open paycheques written to Ryan Reynolds or Zack Synder.

AyeGer

This and banshees of inish..whatever you call it are the two worst films I’ve watched this year.

Caquas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121529221#Comment_121529221

My point is very simple and you now agree with the first half - that the strike was about sharing out the pie ('financial equity"), not improving quality (although there was a lot of media chatter about that, especially how AI would degrade script quality).

The other half of my argument is that the flood of streamers' money will stop very suddenly if Hollywood keeps producing stinkers like this one or the others you mention (I stopped watching Rebel Moon after a half-hour when the evil Empire's soldiers engaged in absurd mind-games with the defenceless villagers about food supplies).

Like most industries in boom times, Hollywood bosses (top execs., stars) are getting rich while the factory hires more workers at the same pay and some old hands actually lose money (because overtime/fringe benefits/residuals/whatever are spread more thinly). Now the workers have got a pay rise (fair enough!) but I say it won't last. Subscribers are already cutting back. AI will disrupt the industry in unpredictable ways. In 10 years time, everyone in Hollywood will be complaining about this deal (just like they complained this time about their 2007 deal).

If Hollywood doesn't produce more consistent quality, Hollywood's dominant role will be challenged by countries who can produce quality cinema for a fraction of the cost. Even Europe can compete, not by lower pay of course, but simply by cutting the outlandish pay roll at every level but especially at the very top where big bucks are paid to people who, judging by this movie, may actually be detrimental to the movie.

Final thought - in a novel, it is not unusual to conclude with an open-ended reflection on the novel's narrative but that is difficult (impossible?) to replicate in a movie without some substantial visual action to underpin the final scene. That should have been uppermost in the minds of anyone trying to turn this novel into a movie but no one shouted stop.

Caquas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121529116#Comment_121529116

My point is that views are a very poor metric of success for streamers. Subscribers will always watch the next big thing on any given platform.

The real test is attracting/retaining subscribers. Viewers on Rotten Tomatoes hate it (some critics love it, natch)

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/leave_the_world_behind_2023/reviews?type=user&intcmp=rt-what-to-know_read-audience-reviews

Agent Coulson

I won't be buying a Tesla after that.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121529804#Comment_121529804

It's actually more than that, as Netflix noted as much with their data dump from a few weeks back. It was pure hour's watched but they made the caveat that raw numbers aren't everything, that the "viral" aspect and social media feedback factors into things - which I'd well believe. I'm sure subscriber numbers is still a driving factor but given IIRC American numbers have flat lined of late, they're possibly not in the "infinite growth" phase of the company anymore.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121529593#Comment_121529593

My point is very simple and you now agree with the first half - that the strike was about sharing out the pie ('financial equity"), not improving quality (although there was a lot of media chatter about that, especially how AI would degrade script quality).

The other half of my argument is that the flood of streamers' money will stop very suddenly if Hollywood keeps producing stinkers like this one or the others you mention (I stopped watching Rebel Moon after a half-hour when the evil Empire's soldiers engaged in absurd mind-games with the defenceless villagers about food supplies).

Gonna sidestep the Strike talk cos I think there's a bit of reduction about worker rights going on here, but is a bit off topic & there's a thread for it already. If Hollywood was ever worried producing crap would drive audiences away, the industry would have died decades ago. Most media really, artistic or otherwise, produces crap or mediocrity and you'll drown for the rubbish novels on the shelves at Chapters.

There is a reckoning going on with some streamers but it has little to do with the relative quality of their output. No more than the rest of Hollywood, out of control budgets are what's tanking things, not the film's themselves. Take a look at what Netflix's hits are and you'd not reckon there's some roiling frustration over "quality" - and even if there was, this film was nowhere near that depth. You'd need to watch more movies 😜

Caquas

The talks for a Warner-Paramount merger are a sign that the money for streaming is running out even sooner than I expected. Neither Paramount nor Warner, two giants, has the funds for this deal so it would be an all-share deal, if it ever gets done, which is doubtful.

I don't think the actors and writers strike killed the golden goose but I fear the deal will prove a pyrrhic victory for those who will be laid off/ struggle to find work in the coming lean years. Julia Roberts won't be bothered - she reportedly got $25M. for this nonsense. I can't find a reliable figure for its overall budget and its box office numbers are meaningless because it got such a limited release.

They say that no one ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the general public but many businesses have failed because they misunderstood their customers. Netflix prides itself on understanding its customers through its algorithms but they won't need algorithms to see that their customers watched this baloney and felt cheated.

A quarter of a billion subscribers will cushion Netflix from the coming shake-out. Netflix shares have recovered most of last year's "Great Netflix Correction", mainly because its subscriber base increased through a crack-down on password-sharing and its new ad-based service (not yet in Ireland). Now Netflix needs more shows which attract and retain subscribers, not bait and switch nonsense.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2023/12/28/shakeout-has-begun-after-5bn-streaming-loss-for-netflix-rivals/

AyeGer

If you watch a bad film on Netflix use the thumbs down 👎 to let them know.

Same if you like a film don’t forget to give it the thumbs up 👍

Caquas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121553170#Comment_121553170

"thumbs down" on Netflix means "not for me" i.e. it helps their algorithm make recommendations. So now I will see fewer movies about global disasters, families on holidays, animal strangeness....

How do I tell Netflix to stop spending millions on glossy movies with nonsensical endings, and no explanation for myriad bizarre plot points?

Agent Coulson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121553472#Comment_121553472

How do I tell Netflix to stop spending millions on glossy movies with nonsensical endings, and no explanation for myriad bizarre plot points?

You cancel your subscription

Sad Professor

I liked this. It's a dream-logic type movie about bad omens and a sense of impending doom. Obviously something a lot of middle class American liberals have been feeling for a while now. The film captures well the inability of many Americans to accept or respond to what is happening. It seems to have attracted a surprisingly broad audience many of whom are not familiar with indie movies and are surprised when everything isn't wrapped up in a bow. It's fitting in a way since the film itself is about people grappling to explain what is happening. I am not too sure about the characters' attempts to explain things near the end and whether its spoon-feeding and heavy-handiness or is just a symptom of their increasingly delusional minds.

kerplun k

Thought overall this was a decent film. It was interesting, atmospheric and well crafted. More of this, rather than the cookie cutter Rock, Reynolds, Gadot, they churn out.

appledrop

An absolute load of crap with absolutely no ending.

The camera work was absolutely head wrecking, along with most of the characters.

Masterso is another one that is a load of crap, not impressed at all with Netflix latest offerings.

ben.schlomo

I liked it. Hawke, Ali and Roberts were good throughout.