Zakiyyah6 Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 Was grimdark still a huge fad beyond a shortsighted Warner Brothers who couldn't understand that not every character was Batman? Also Blade Runner is a serious sci fi movie, it's supposed to be dark. Drop the Disney pipe for a moment and realize that every movie shouldn't have a dance off at the end. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a2k Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) 27 minutes ago, redfirebird2008 said: You don’t think BR49 can reach a 2.85 multiplier for $100m? I doubt 100m with this early front-loading. If the ow is 4 previews + 32 and it does 3x of 32, then the dom will be 4 + 96 = 100. That's 2.78x the ow. I think the lowest disastrous end is a Covfefe like multiplier: 74.3/36.2 = 2.05x but that's too pessimistic. MAG7 did ~2.6x (36 ow /93 dom). Even if BR has much better reception, MAG7 did not have sequelitis. 2.5-2.7x with 36 ow gives 90-97 dom. Thinking somewhere in between. High 80s on cards too. Edited October 7, 2017 by a2knet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That One Girl Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 39 minutes ago, The Futurist said: This grim dark fad is coming to an end. Good ridance. Considering 4 of my 5 favorite movies of this year could be considered as "grim dark," it'll be a damn shame if the """"fad"""" comes to an end. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valonqar Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Zakiyyah6 said: Alcon is fucked but Denis will be fine because he's an awesome filmmaker. He did his job and made a good movie. Not his fault nobody cares about Blade Runner. yep, it isn't that the movie underperformed in its opening weekend due to horrid reviews. It's simply that the studio may have overestimated the interest in the property but the director did the best job with it that could be done. That said, Legendary may re-think Dune not because of Denis but because of hard sci fi limited appeal. IMO, that property has always been more suitable for GoT-like treatment, and considering how great many TV show production values are these days, it would be a gain for everyone. Edited October 7, 2017 by Valonqar 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brainbug Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 The original adjusts to 83M in its original run and 93M with re-releases. It would be pathetic if the new one fails to top that. Im counting on great legs for 100M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zakiyyah6 Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 1 minute ago, Valonqar said: yep, it isn't that the movie underperformed in its opening weekend due to horrid reviews. It's simply that the studio may have overestimated the interest in the property but the director did the best job with it that could be done. That said, Legendary may re-think Dune not because of Denis but because of hard sci fi limited appeal. IMO, that property has always been more suitable for GoT-like treatment, a TV show and considering how great many TV show production values are these days, it would be a gain for everyone. Yes, it's doubtful that Dune would make enough money to cover what will have to be an enormous budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonwo Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 I imagine in 2052, we’ll be getting Blade Runner 2079. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalismanRing Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 A $36.5m opening is great for a sequel to Blade Runner. The budget was just far too big for Rated R hard sci-fi film based off a decades old cult favorite IP. If they kept it around $80-90m they might have had a great franchise starter on their hands. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a2k Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 2 minutes ago, TalismanRing said: A $36.5m opening is great for a sequel to Blade Runner. The budget was just far too big for Rated R hard sci-fi film based off a decades old cult favorite IP. If they kept it around $80-90m they might have had a great franchise starter on their hands. Yeah, though how do you get those production values on a smaller budget. Times like these I respect Cameron. Big budget + great visuals + solid cast =\= easy money ... like few folks say while dissing Avatar (which I too didn't love but will conceded that I was a minority). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valonqar Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 It could still develop legs. I don't know what competition it's facing til Ragnarok. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonwo Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 4 minutes ago, TalismanRing said: A $36.5m opening is great for a sequel to Blade Runner. The budget was just far too big for Rated R hard sci-fi film based off a decades old cult favorite IP. If they kept it around $80-90m they might have had a great franchise starter on their hands. I wonder if WB suspected this hence why they just took domestic rights due to their deal with Alcon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookie Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 That's some major ouch for Blade Runner. I can understand why not everyone may enjoy it but I thougt was pretty good myself. The length probably threw a lot of people off though. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeQ Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) I presumed from the get-go that Blade Runner 2049 was going to do relatively so-so (poorly relative to budget) at the box office, and was just happy we were getting a well-financed sequel made by a top notch director to enjoy. I mean, the original has become a cult classic among film fans, but it wasn't some huge phenomenon (and from what I understand, pretty widely disliked when the theatrical version opened). With that being said, this will be the highest opening film for Villeneuve. Peace, Mike Edited October 7, 2017 by MikeQ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cochofles Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 32 minutes ago, Noctis said: So explain to me why you love MJ1/MJ2...especially the latter...which is so fucking grim. Because they star his wankmuse... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfirebird2008 Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 25 minutes ago, a2knet said: I doubt 100m with this early front-loading. If the ow is 4 previews + 32 and it does 3x of 32, then the dom will be 4 + 96 = 100. That's 2.78x the ow. I think the lowest disastrous end is a Covfefe like multiplier: 74.3/36.2 = 2.05x but that's too pessimistic. MAG7 did ~2.6x (36 ow /93 dom). Even if BR has much better reception, MAG7 did not have sequelitis. 2.5-2.7x with 36 ow gives 90-97 dom. Thinking somewhere in between. High 80s on cards too. Weekend frontloading means nothing. Look at Dunkirk. Very frontloaded on the weekend and ends up with 3.7+ multiplier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brainbug Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, a2knet said: Times like these I respect Cameron. Big budget + great visuals + solid cast =\= easy money ... like few folks say while dissing Avatar (which I too didn't love but will conceded that I was a minority). Big Budget + great visuals + solid cast + cliche story so no one is challenged - easy money. Blade Runners universe and story isnt easily accessible. Avatars is. Which i dont mean as a negative per se. Edited October 7, 2017 by Brainbug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WrathOfHan Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) Well fuck, looks like this is going to be close to my 37M prediction in the Derby Good for MLP, MBU, and It. That's an extremely disappointing hold for AM. Kingsman dropped as expected. That is a SUPER impressive number for Victoria and Abdul. It should be going wider over the next few weeks. Flatliners holding that well shows how starved teens are for a movie. It'll collapse next weekend when HDD is out. Battle of the Sexes' expansion didn't do much to help it out. @Alli The Snowman's embargo comes from a user on Awards Watch who is going to a critics screening on the day before previews Edited October 7, 2017 by WrathOfHan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valonqar Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 10 minutes ago, cookie said: That's some major ouch for Blade Runner. I can understand why not everyone may enjoy it but I thougt was pretty good myself. The length probably threw a lot of people off though. I don't think enjoyment and WOM are to blame. Poeple simply aren't interested this weekend. Sometimes you are aware that a really good movie is playing but you just aren't interested in its premise or stars or both or other reason (length). 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalismanRing Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 10 minutes ago, a2knet said: Yeah, though how do you get those production values on a smaller budget. Times like these I respect Cameron. Big budget + great visuals + solid cast =\= easy money ... like few folks say while dissing Avatar (which I too didn't love but will conceded that I was a minority). The first film had great visuals and production values - probably better with a $28m budget which in 2017 $s is about $70m. Now production costs haven't followed along with inflation but Ghost In The Shell reportedly cost $110m and it looked pretty good. The script was just pants. But if the script can't be fulfilled with a smaller budget, change it. Adapt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a2k Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 2 minutes ago, Brainbug said: Big Budget + great visuals + solid cast + cliche story so no one is challenged - easy money. Blade Runners universe and story isnt easily accessible. Avatars is. Which i dont mean as a negative per se. i think it's easy to feel that way now. but avatar had blue fully cgi characters in lieu of real human characters for most part. that was risky has hell. the story was less complex and more ga-friendly than BR for sure. but after the original BR flopped, they should have tried to fix that somewhat this time around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
