Blade runner 2049
Discussion
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.
Clockwork Cupcake said:
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).
ExactlyImagine taking something like a personal computer or games console from 1985 back to 1955, what would people make of it?
Take a computer of games console from 2015 back to 1985 and although it would be a lot more advanced - people would recognise it, understand what it does and probably how to use it.
The difference between 1955 and 1985 is profound. The difference between 1985 and 2015, not so much.
Most of the technology that I have in my house today, looks similar to and functions in a similar manner to what we had in 1985.
r11co said:
So, more than covered its arse in box office alone, and that was without starting $4.05bn* in the hole to buy the rights before a single shot was filmed (looking at you, Disney and Lucasfilm).
How much have they made on merchandise and other promo tie ins? Thats always where disney aims to make money- 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.
The internet has revolutionised society. In 1985, anyone with a computer was regarded as either 1KB short or else rather cool. Too few of the latter. My Spectrum was the business right up until a friend bought an Amiga. That was '86.
I reckon there will be histories of the world where 1985ish will be the start of a new 'age' with TCP/IP.
There are lots of other changes: in '85 there were concerns about NI and the border, there was trouble in the Middle East, Russia was sabre rattling. Oh so different to nowadays.
In some ways it is less concerning. We were worried about nuclear war in 85, and now it is plastic bags and ear buds. So a positive there.
I reckon there will be histories of the world where 1985ish will be the start of a new 'age' with TCP/IP.
There are lots of other changes: in '85 there were concerns about NI and the border, there was trouble in the Middle East, Russia was sabre rattling. Oh so different to nowadays.
In some ways it is less concerning. We were worried about nuclear war in 85, and now it is plastic bags and ear buds. So a positive there.
HighwayStar said:
I think you wanted a different film to what you got and you are disappointed what was delivered.
Second time I watched it I felt unfulfilled rather than disappointed. I think it could have been better/improved. Did I want to watch another replicant realise its own empathy/humanity? No, already did that in the first film. Could have played more on the paternal angle between Deckard and K, underground rebellion could have had a bigger screen time as they popped up in the middle of the film and disappeared though probably have to wait for the sequel.
entropy said:
HighwayStar said:
I think you wanted a different film to what you got and you are disappointed what was delivered.
Second time I watched it I felt unfulfilled rather than disappointed. I think it could have been better/improved. Did I want to watch another replicant realise its own empathy/humanity? No, already did that in the first film. Could have played more on the paternal angle between Deckard and K, underground rebellion could have had a bigger screen time as they popped up in the middle of the film and disappeared though probably have to wait for the sequel.
Interesting theory on this vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtwBj9WhqL4
It suggests that Luv is actually the sought-after daughter of Deckard and Rachael and not Dr. Ana. Which would be rather ironic.
It suggests that Luv is actually the sought-after daughter of Deckard and Rachael and not Dr. Ana. Which would be rather ironic.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff