The Real Reason Killers Of The Flower Moon Flopped At The Box Office

2023 continues to be a strange, confusing year for box-office expectations. Surefire summer fixtures like DC's "The Flash" and Disney's "Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny" emerged as box office failures, losing their respective studios millions of dollars. Meanwhile, an unexpected number of mature, adult-oriented pictures have triumphed at the box office, including the controversial "Sound of Freedom" and the three-hour "Oppenheimer." Both films absolutely dominated, with the Angel Studios film posting global receipts north of $240 million. "Oppenheimer," of course, became the talk of the summer, and managed to rake in shy of $950 million — a monumental feat for a three-hour, R-rated movie in 2023.

The success of these diverse, practically IP-less films was promising, signaling that upcoming adult-oriented projects could post record-breaking box office figures. Unfortunately, Martin Scorsese's highly-anticipated "Killers of the Flower Moon" has flopped, suggesting that "Sound of Freedom" and the near billion-dollar-grossing "Oppenheimer" were lightning in a bottle. On a reported budget of $200 million, Scorsese's latest picture debuted at $44 million worldwide. The Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert De Niro-led film, to date, has raked in $85 million globally – a far cry from its nine-figure budget. 

The financial disappointment of "Killers of the Flower Moon" particularly stings as the film is widely being hailed as one of Scorsese's best. And seeing as the picture highlights one of the most damning and devastating tragedies to take place on American soil. 

"Killers of the Flower Moon" will likely end its box office run around or just above $100 million worldwide — a number that would place the three-hour-plus epic as one of the director's highest-grossing films. While Martin Scorsese is by no means an automatic box office draw (even his most iconic films like "Taxi Driver" and "Goodfellas" failed to crack $50 million worldwide), he stands out as one of the most beloved contemporary filmmakers. A living legend who hopefully has more films under his belt, Scorsese was able to convince Apple Studios to grant him a $200 million budget ... for an R-rated, conversation-heavy, over three-hour-long crime film. 

When one considers that the film could fail to even break the $110 million barrier, its bloated budget feels like a major culprit. And seeing as the picture had a 60% drop domestically during its sophomore weekend (it made a modest $9 million), it's fair to say that there's no scenario where "Killers" makes its $200 million budget back. When films like Christopher Nolan's "Oppenheimer" are able to accurately replicate period-era aesthetics, from vehicles to towns, and even recreate atomic bomb detonations for $100 million, one has to wonder what Scorsese did with $200 million — especially when the film doesn't look that opulent. 

Well, Variety says that Apple and Scorsese granted lead star Leonardo DiCaprio a $30 million salary as the bumbling and despicable Ernest Burkhart. In a world where Adam Driver can readily agree to receive a pay cut to ensure films like "Ferrari" get made, it's mind-boggling that Apple afforded DiCaprio such a stellar salary. Perhaps a modest, raked-in budget would have helped "Killers" post at least a minimal theatrical profit. 

Simply put, "Killers of the Flower Moon" is a cinematic triumph. With a Rotten Tomatoes rating of 93% and an overwhelmingly positive A- CinemaScore, "Killers" is nothing short of a career highlight for Martin Scorsese and its stellar cast. And for some, like Looper critic Audrey Fox, who awarded the film a 9/10, the film's 206-minute runtime was a privilege that allowed it to breathe and meditate on the tragedy of the Osage people. Unfortunately, a three-hour-plus runtime was certainly pushing it for general audience members. 

Take to social media sites like Reddit and you'll find several cinephiles deciding that it's best to skip the film's theatrical release because it's just too damn long. "I'll wait to watch it in nice 4k Dolby Vision at home where I can pause, etc," said Reddit user u/MarginOfCorrectness in a thread discussing how the film should have had an intermission. One could argue that "Oppenheimer," which was 25 minutes shorter than "Killers" was able to prosper at the box office, but Scorsese's latest simply doesn't have the same cultural momentum as Nolan's epic. 

Beyond an excessive runtime that may have turned potential viewers off, the 200-minute-plus length definitely limits the number of showtimes and auditoriums that a multiplex can allocate toward the picture. The film has been criticized by some for its excessive length (see Brian Lowry of CNN's review), and it's difficult to not wonder how the film would have fared if it was more accessible. It also doesn't help that the pre-release conversation surrounding the film was focused on its length and not on various talking points brought forth by its actors. 

"Killers of the Flower Moon" is a genuine star-studded affair, featuring Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert De Niro, Jesse Plemons, Brendan Fraser, John Lithgow, and more. That's a whole lot of Oscar winners and nominees in one film. It features a career-defining performance from Lily Gladstone, whose character Mollie falls for DiCaprio's greedy Ernest. And as compelling as the film's premise is, which focuses on the various murders that plague the oil-wealthy Osage nation in the 1920s, "Killers of the Flower Moon" is marketable primarily because of its cast. 

It features heavyweights like DiCaprio and De Niro in leading roles, but it also features Gladstone and a whole slew of Indigenous actors who weren't able to promote the picture because of the SAG-AFTRA strike. The actor's strike, which kicked off in July 2023, forbids actors from promoting or marketing any of their projects. Because of this, Gladstone and her castmates weren't allowed to promote the film in interviews, during press junkets, or on late-night programs. 

While Martin Scorsese certainly tried his best to promote the film on programs like "Jimmy Kimmel Live!," the director doesn't have the same recognizability or clout as DiCaprio or De Niro. Seeing as this is the first film of Scorsese's that both regulars are starring in together, one can only imagine how interviews of the duo bantering would have gone viral. Beyond that, no promotion meant no opportunity for the film's (primarily Indigenous) actors to discuss just how important the film is when it regarding the tragedy the Osage nation suffered. "Killers of the Flower Moon" is essential viewing if you're interested in America's shameful past, but it's disappointing that the Osage actors couldn't convey this information prior to its release because of the strike. 

Perhaps the gobsmacking performance of "Oppenheimer" left box-office pundits with far too much optimism. While the performance of the Cillian Murphy-led film is definitely mind-boggling, it should be remembered that director Christopher Nolan is a brand unto himself. The creative maverick boasts a number of box-office hits, several of which are original projects, like "Inception" and "Dunkirk." Beyond Nolan's mass-market recognizability, it's impossible to ignore the "Barbenheimer" effect that "Oppenheimer" had in conjunction with its cinematic twin flame "Barbie." 

Unfortunately, "Killers of the Flower Moon" didn't have the same cultural momentum or excitement as "Oppenheimer," which definitely helped the Nolan film. But even without the expectations set by "Oppenheimer," it's hard to imagine "Killers" succeeding in any scenario without a minimal budget. In recent years, historical epics haven't had much momentum. 2022's "Babylon," the $110 million film set in the 1920s only made $63 million. Ridley Scott's 2021 "The Last Duel," which features Adam Driver, Jodie Comer, and Matt Damon in lead roles, failed to make more than $30 million at the box office; it cost $100 million. Even Scorsese's 17th-century-set magnum opus "Silence" couldn't make its reported $45 million budget back in 2016, so how could the $200 million costing "Killers"? 

"Oppenheimer" is the exception and not the rule when it comes to historical epics succeeding in this current theatrical landscape, which constantly seems to be in flux. 

Ultimately, "Killers of the Flower Moon" will more than likely fail to make a profit at the global box office. But that doesn't really matter, because intention is extremely important when it comes to digesting this film's numbers. For Apple TV+, "Killers of the Flower Moon" posting a profit isn't as important as the film dominating awards season. There's a reason why Netflix (which debuted "The Irishman") and Apple are giving Martin Scorsese hundreds of millions of dollars to do whatever the heck he wants: it's because he provides results. While his projects don't make as much as the MCU films he's repeatedly criticized, Scorsese's films attract prestige and awards, something streamers vie for as the distribution industry drastically changes. 

For Apple TV+ and distributor Paramount Pictures, everything "Killers of the Flower Moon" makes theatrically is gravy on top of prestige and name recognition. Don't forget: "Killers of the Flower Moon" is first and foremost billed as an Apple Original, meaning it'll only be available on Apple TV+ once it dashes out of cinemas. This is a pure streaming play that just so happens to have a traditional theatrical release. 

And what the film has made so far shouldn't be understated. "Killers" made $40 million during its opening weekend, and is on track to make over $100 million globally — this is nothing short of a miracle. In a world where Netflix abandoned "The Irishman" theatrically, where it failed to make even $1 million due to a limited release, it's brilliant that Apple is affording Scorsese a full, 3,000-theatre-plus wide release.