Blade Runner 2049 | October 6, 2017 | Villeneuve directs | Full Trailer on Page 40

[a2k]

Was on 240m ww after a 2.3m weekend. Should add 5-6m more dom. So 250m+ ww looks safe.

How much does it have left OS?

Also, is there a consensus on the prod budget? Have heard 81m + reshoots, 100m+ on Deadline, 150m on Mojo and 185m on the-numbers.com

 

Edited November 9, 2017 by a2knet

[Valonqar]

40 minutes ago, a2knet said:

Was on 240m ww after a 2.3m weekend. Should add 5-6m more dom. So 250m+ ww looks safe.

How much does it have left OS?

Also, is there a consensus on the prod budget? Have heard 81m + reshoots, 100m+ on Deadline, 150m on Mojo and 185m on the-numbers.com

 

It's probably 185M. It definitively isn't just 100M. It's a bomb. 

[Brainbug]

1 hour ago, Valonqar said:

It's probably 185M. It definitively isn't just 100M. It's a bomb. 

 

Can we please be more careful with the word Bomb? It should be reserved for real disasters like Mars needs Moms or Adventures of Pluto Nash. BR2049 underperformend badly compared to its budget. 250M Worldwide on its own for a hard-sci-fi film is quite good. Furthermore, it has a glowing reception and is sure to be a future cult classic. The word bomb seems a bit harsh to me.

[John Marston]

On 11/9/2017 at 5:40 PM, Brainbug said:

 

Can we please be more careful with the word Bomb? It should be reserved for real disasters like Mars needs Moms or Adventures of Pluto Nash. BR2049 underperformend badly compared to its budget. 250M Worldwide on its own for a hard-sci-fi film is quite good. Furthermore, it has a glowing reception and is sure to be a future cult classic. The word bomb seems a bit harsh to me.

 

 

Guess if you want to define a bomb that way bit BR 2049 is definitely a flop 

[Brainbug]

8 hours ago, John Marston said:

 

 

Guess if you want to define a bomb that way bit BR 2049 is definitely a flop 

 

A financial flop it sadly is, yes. But Bomb is another level of failure imo.

[Captain Craig]

Has this already been pulled from theaters? I didn't see it in weekend estimates. When you look at it's Daily breakdown page at BOM it just stops at 11/22.

So is $89m it's domestic tally?

Really thought Warners might let it ride a bit longer.

[Brainbug]

3 minutes ago, Captain Craig said:

Has this already been pulled from theaters? I didn't see it in weekend estimates. When you look at it's Daily breakdown page at BOM it just stops at 11/22.

So is $89m it's domestic tally?

Really thought Warners might let it ride a bit longer.

 

No its not, WB has just stopped tracking it with estimates. Once the weekend actuals come out, youll see the grosses.

[SLAM!]

1 hour ago, Brainbug said:

 

No its not, WB has just stopped tracking it with estimates. Once the weekend actuals come out, youll see the grosses.

 

That's really annoying.

[MCKillswitch123]

On 09/11/2017 at 10:40 PM, Brainbug said:

 

Can we please be more careful with the word Bomb? It should be reserved for real disasters like Mars needs Moms or Adventures of Pluto Nash. BR2049 underperformend badly compared to its budget. 250M Worldwide on its own for a hard-sci-fi film is quite good. Furthermore, it has a glowing reception and is sure to be a future cult classic. The word bomb seems a bit harsh to me.

I get what you're saying, and I agree - for a nearly 3 hour long, very anti-mainstream, slow paced, hardcore sci-fi movie that's a sequel to a cult classic that didn't even make 100M worldwide, 2049 actually had a pleasant result.

 

However, it cost 185M to make. And if it cost 185M in production budget alone, and only made 250M WW, than... it's a bomb. I'm sorry, but there's no question about it. It doesn't matter if its circumstances were very unfavorable - that was the amount of money put into the film, and it didn't make anywhere near enough for all costs to be covered. Ghostbusters '16 was considered a big failure, and 2049 barely outgrossed GB worldwide on a much bigger budget. So.... yeah.

[Blankments]

THIS MOVIE WAS TIGHT I LIKED IT

[That One Girl]

http://www.slashfilm.com/blade-runner-2049-ridley-scott/

 

Quote

‘Blade Runner 2049’ Director (Nicely) Kicked Ridley Scott Off His Set

Quote

“He came on set one day and after a few minutes standing behind me it was unbearable. I made a joke, I said to him, ‘Hey Ridley, who is your favorite director?’ And he said, ‘I love Ingmar Bergman and Kubrick.’ I said, ‘I love Bergman too. So Ridley, how would you feel if you were on set directing and you had Bergman just behind you?’ And he burst out laughing and he walked off the set. Because I was trying to direct Harrison Ford and I was like, ‘Nope, it doesn’t work.'”

 

[IronJimbo]

1 hour ago, That One Jar Jar Binks said:

http://www.slashfilm.com/blade-runner-2049-ridley-scott/

Good to see Deni has balls, lesser man would have let Ridley ruin it. Just like he ruined the Alien franchise.

Ridley giveth and ridley taketh.

[The Futurist]

 

 

Edited January 4, 2018 by The Futurist

[The Futurist]

Crazy & Creepy Stuff !

[Elessar]

Best CGI human hands down. BR2049 deserves an SFX Oscar for this alone.

Edited January 4, 2018 by Elessar

[shayhiri]

Well. You people know the Shay is the first (and only) to always declare that new movies always trump old ones - but here, here's just the opposite, to my dismay.

 

BR2049 was a tedious bore and a murky mess - in other words, exactly what you would expect from a certain undertalented Frenchie. And then, a week later, I went to the only showing of the original movie - and lo and behold - it was WAY better in every aspect imaginable, including the visuals!! I couldn't believe it - but I had a blast with Ridley's old Blade Runner. (I could only imagine the effect if I had seen it on the big screen in the 80ies...)

 

Which, of course, isn't to say that old movies are not obsolete. This is to say that stupid French hacks can fuck up even a 200m. new movie!! Fucking unbelievable.

Edited January 4, 2018 by shayhiri

[John Marston]

this movie is so good looking that I blew 30 bucks to get the 4K edition first week

 

 

 

I am disappointed that it doesn't use the IMAX aspect ratio. Dunkirk did so why not this>

 

 

can't wait to watch it again

[MrPink]

45 minutes ago, John Marston said:

this movie is so good looking that I blew 30 bucks to get the 4K edition first week

 

 

 

I am disappointed that it doesn't use the IMAX aspect ratio. Dunkirk did so why not this>

 

 

can't wait to watch it again

 

Outside of  Transformers Revenge of the Fallen, Star Trek Into Darkness (Compendium Release), and the Nolan movies, can't recall many if any that have used shifting/IMAX ratios.

[filmlover]

I got this on Blu-Ray yesterday. 

[The Panda]

On 1/4/2018 at 1:21 PM, shayhiri said:

Well. You people know the Shay is the first (and only) to always declare that new movies always trump old ones - but here, here's just the opposite, to my dismay.

 

BR2049 was a tedious bore and a murky mess - in other words, exactly what you would expect from a certain undertalented Frenchie. And then, a week later, I went to the only showing of the original movie - and lo and behold - it was WAY better in every aspect imaginable, including the visuals!! I couldn't believe it - but I had a blast with Ridley's old Blade Runner. (I could only imagine the effect if I had seen it on the big screen in the 80ies...)

 

Which, of course, isn't to say that old movies are not obsolete. This is to say that stupid French hacks can fuck up even a 200m. new movie!! Fucking unbelievable.

A glowing endorsement by Shay, BR2049 truly is a masterwork.