Blade runner 2049
Discussion
JagLover said:
As an estimate BladeRunner 2049 was still $125M in the red
receipts $259m v budget of $150http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&...
southendpier said:
JagLover said:
As an estimate BladeRunner 2049 was still $125M in the red
receipts $259m v budget of $150http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&...
- Interesting that when searching for that figure it is being reported that the Disney Star wars acquisition has now paid for itself because the box office gross for The Force Awakens, Rogue One and The Last Jedi have just surpassed the purchase price of Lucasfilm. Desperate spin - someone should explain to the reporters the difference between takings and net profit.
southendpier said:
That's just the production budget, they usually spend the same amount again on advertising, promotion, distribution etc. This film won't have made money in the cinema. It might recuperate some on DVD sales but it will never be hailed as a financial success which means next time someone says "give me money to make a beautiful looking but slow paced sci-fi film", the money men will say no.r11co said:
entropy said:
Okay, okay, reboot wasn't the right word. 2049 has an original plot that neatly follows from the original (though I'm still can't fathom how a replicant can... )
Certainly sequels tend to recycle plots in a different setting whereas with 2049 it was aesthetics: Frank Lloyd Wright interior of K's apartment, prostitutes resemble Pris, shimmering light, interior lighting of Wallace's building resembling Tyrell's.
It is the same world ferchrissake! A world that was supposed to have been suspended in time for a decade due to what was effectively a terrorist attack taking out power/data/finance, so things won't necessarily have moved on apace.Certainly sequels tend to recycle plots in a different setting whereas with 2049 it was aesthetics: Frank Lloyd Wright interior of K's apartment, prostitutes resemble Pris, shimmering light, interior lighting of Wallace's building resembling Tyrell's.
The apartments look the same because they are the same (a replicant isn't supposed to give a s
t about decor and won't be calling Gok Wan or Karyn Franklin in for advice about scatter cushions). The prozzies look the same because they are mass manufactured. Wallace's building IS Tyrell's building.Though isn't Wallace's building behind Tyrell's old one? Bigger and better? K flies over the old pyramids on the approach to the new, massive lair?
HighwayStar said:
RobDickinson said:
I think some people just fail to understand the movie and the subtle handing of it.
This... I have a few friends who’ve written off good movies because ‘nothing’ happened... they want action every 10mins... we all take our movie entertainment in different ways. One of my friends watched 2049 and hated it. His view was totally predictable.
southendpier said:
JagLover said:
As an estimate BladeRunner 2049 was still $125M in the red
receipts $259m v budget of $150http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&...
Marketing costs are rarely released separately, but they average $100m-$200m for the average Hollywood blockbuster.
Also box office grosses are total, not the element that goes to the studio.
The calculation can be rather complex but typically the studio gets back just over half of US box office grosses and considerably less than half of foreign grosses.
Including marketing, cost was almost certainly at least $250 million and it is doubtful the studio received much more than $125M of the box office receipts.
Whenever you see the box office being reported for these big Hollywood blockbusters just remember that breakeven might start at $600 million.
For those interested in how the box office takings are usually split. Look at all the fuss generated by Disney's demands over the last Star Wars movie.
WSJ said:
Average splits range from 40 percent abroad to 55 percent on average in the US to 60 percent for only the largest hits
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/11/disney-makes-a-bigger-ask-of-theaters-than-ever-before-with-the-last-jedi/Guvernator said:
southendpier said:
That's just the production budget, they usually spend the same amount again on advertising, promotion, distribution etc. That $259m in box office receipts, translates to around $130m in the studio's pocket - so the movie is already $20 million in the red against it's production budget before even factoring advertising and promotion.
DVD/blu-ray/digital downloads and merchandising sales will alleviate that somewhat - but I doubt it's in profit.
Guvernator said:
The Last Jedi made over a $1bn at the box office and while it certainly made money, the film isn't being hailed as a massive financial success for Disney although they are lucky in that they probably make a lot more money on merchandising.
There is a video on the "Last Jedi" thread which explains why it probably isn't a financial success despite taking so much at the box office.Not only does TLJ have to make back it's production and marketing budget......it also has to go some way to giving a reasonable return on investment against the $4 billion Disney paid for the franchise. It also has to keep momentum in the franchise going (which based on the way it polarised the fan base - was probably it's biggest failing).
Moonhawk said:
Up next - Bridget Jones' Lightsaber
I'm holding out for the Pruneface film. 
https://youtu.be/mdEUwHF7d7I
(Apologies for being seriously off-topic)
r11co said:
RobDickinson said:
I think some people just fail to understand the movie and the subtle handing of it.
To criticise a sequel for having locations, sets and characters that look similar to the original movie when those similarities are important plot points is just plain wrong-headedness.Guvernator said:
Ah yes the old "you don't like it because you didn't understand it" spiel, always makes me chuckle that one. 
If someone misses the significance of 'basic pleasure model replicants' and the stated fact in the opening credit that Wallace had taken over the Tyrrel Corporation, renamed it and was operating out of the same building then criticises the movie because these aspects were 'too similar' to the original, then IMO the criticism that they are lacking understanding of what they saw is wholly valid.Edited by r11co on Friday 11th May 12:11
Dare to be different, take risks and put your own stamp on things. Other sequels were visually different. Take Robocop 2 as an example that had a brighter colour pallete or Alien 3 - despite the studio meddling you could tell David Fincher was influenced the first film but introduced something new, different, his own take on things like the Alien POV and lens flares. Those weren't great sequels but being visually different I have a lot of respect for.
RobDickinson said:
I think some people just fail to understand the movie and the subtle handing of it.
Oh please! I was born in 1980 and Apocalypse Now is my favourite movie. First time I watched I was 18 it I taped it off the TV, rewound it and watched it again; I'm quite happy to sit throught the 3 plus hours of Redux in one sitting. That film got me into New Hollywood and is probably my favourite film era.entropy said:
r11co said:
RobDickinson said:
I think some people just fail to understand the movie and the subtle handing of it.
To criticise a sequel for having locations, sets and characters that look similar to the original movie when those similarities are important plot points is just plain wrong-headedness.Guvernator said:
Ah yes the old "you don't like it because you didn't understand it" spiel, always makes me chuckle that one.
If someone misses the significance of 'basic pleasure model replicants' and the stated fact in the opening credit that Wallace had taken over the Tyrrel Corporation, renamed it and was operating out of the same building then criticises the movie because these aspects were 'too similar' to the original, then IMO the criticism that they are lacking understanding of what they saw is wholly valid.Edited by r11co on Friday 11th May 12:11
Dare to be different, take risks and put your own stamp on things. Other sequels were visually different. Take Robocop 2 as an example that had a brighter colour pallete or Alien 3 - despite the studio meddling you could tell David Fincher was influenced the first film but introduced something new, different, his own take on things like the Alien POV and lens flares. Those weren't great sequels but being visually different I have a lot of respect for.
RobDickinson said:
I think some people just fail to understand the movie and the subtle handing of it.
Oh please! I was born in 1980 and Apocalypse Now is my favourite movie. First time I watched I was 18 it I taped it off the TV, rewound it and watched it again; I'm quite happy to sit throught the 3 plus hours of Redux in one sitting. That film got me into New Hollywood and is probably my favourite film era.Ridley Scott is the Executive Producer of 2049... Bladerunner is his bady.... he still had massive input into the direction of the film would take.
Fincher and Irvin Kershner could go wherever they wanted with those films. They are going to be visually different as they have a different approach to movie making to the original director.
Have you seen Arrivals? Denis Villeneuve is more in the mould of Scott. Hampton Fancher did the screenplay for both Bladerunner and 2049.
30yrs on the setting isn't going to move on much, just more decay... where is Deckard, in hiding, going to go?
I would imagine there would've been long discussions between Villeneuve, Scott and Hampton Fancher about the look and feel of the film.
Directors don't like studios or others meddling in their work, if they had happened, in this day and age, we would know about it. They either get fired or walk.
I think you wanted a different film to what you got and you are disappointed what was delivered.
HighwayStar said:
30yrs on the setting isn't going to move on much, just more decay.
As I said - 30 years, most of which were taken up by a process of getting back to where they were at the start due to terrorist activity arresting the development of a society that was pretty much in terminal decline already. To drastically change the setting would destroy that part of the narrative.Plus, there is enough different in the scenes set away from the city to visually distinguish this movie from its predecessor.
r11co said:
As I said - 30 years, most of which were taken up by a process of getting back to where they were at the start due to terrorist activity arresting the development of a society that was pretty much in terminal decline already. To drastically change the setting would destroy that part of the narrative.
Plus, there is enough different in the scenes set away from the city to visually distinguish this movie from its predecessor.
Also, how much has really changed in, say, London in 30 years? Ok, the clothes are different, the cars are different, people walk around with their noses buried in their smartphones, but fundamentally it's not radically different and is more of an evolution. Plus, there is enough different in the scenes set away from the city to visually distinguish this movie from its predecessor.
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Also, how much has really changed in, say, London in 30 years? Ok, the clothes are different, the cars are different, people walk around with their noses buried in their smartphones, but fundamentally it's not radically different and is more of an evolution.
Back to the future is a great example of this.Going from 1985 to 1955 was a huge step change. But if you took somebody from 2015 and sent them back to 1985 - the step change wouldn't be nearly as big.
Whilst technology has moved on dramatically - the improvements have been largely internal and unobtrusive.
The further we go into the future - the less outwardly apparent the changes will become.
Moonhawk said:
Back to the future is a great example of this.
Going from 1985 to 1955 was a huge step change. But if you took somebody from 2015 and sent them back to 1985 - the step change wouldn't be nearly as big.
Whilst technology has moved on dramatically - the improvements have been largely internal and unobtrusive.
The further we go into the future - the less outwardly apparent the changes will become.
Sort of disagree with that. Going from 1985 to 1955 was a huge step change. But if you took somebody from 2015 and sent them back to 1985 - the step change wouldn't be nearly as big.
Whilst technology has moved on dramatically - the improvements have been largely internal and unobtrusive.
The further we go into the future - the less outwardly apparent the changes will become.
Walking down a high street in 1985 and 2015 would look other worldly. The cars, shop fronts, people's behaviour etc. It's why 1980s fashion is so distinct ditto music etc etc it's a genre within its own right.
RemyMartin81D said:
Sort of disagree with that.
Walking down a high street in 1985 and 2015 would look other worldly. The cars, shop fronts, people's behaviour etc. It's why 1980s fashion is so distinct ditto music etc etc it's a genre within its own right.
Being old enough to have walked down the same High Street in both 1985 and 2015, I don't agree with you. Today doesn't feel "other worldly" to me compared to back then. I don't look at old photos or videos from back then and think "omg it was another world". Cars still look like cars, people still look like people, shops still look like shops, a few buildings may have changed but many are still recognisably the same. Some have not changed a bit (eg. The Town Hall). Walking down a high street in 1985 and 2015 would look other worldly. The cars, shop fronts, people's behaviour etc. It's why 1980s fashion is so distinct ditto music etc etc it's a genre within its own right.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff