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

[ThePhasmid]

If this film doesn't give Deakins his win, I don't know what will. As much as I love Weta's work on the Apes franchise, the diversity they provided for this film is unparalleled. Future San Diego looked so real.

[tonytr87]

On 1/20/2018 at 11:28 PM, The Futurist said:

How many more millions of dollars Dennis will loose for studios before he realizes movies are made for audiences and not critics and cinephile circles ?

Can he mature to that point ?

Does he even want to ?

 

All of his films up until now turned a profit, especially Prisoners and Arrival and apparently Sicario considering they made a sequel for no reason. 

[Tauren Warlock]

The thing going against Deakins winning is that Bladerunner 2049 is not nominated in the important categories like BP and BD. Film editing and cinematography are tied with BD and BP.

[KeepItU25071906]

 

[The Panda]

Are you made Blade Runner got snubbed for BP?  Here’s your chance to vote for it at the BOFFYS!

 

Ballots due today

 

 

[Ryan Reynolds]

 

[Mojoguy]

FLOP

[Barnack]

Hollywood reporter is a bit strange here, 

 

In this article:

Since Alcon shared some of those losses with Sony,

 

In a previous article refereed in this new article:

But Sony is ultimately expected to recoup its $110 million investment in the Alcon production because of the agreement brokered by Sony Motion Picture Group chairman Tom Rothman. The studio is the first to get back any revenue in exchange for giving up a bigger slice of back-end profits

 

And the message in the twitt make no sense either with that shared some losses with Sony statement.... 

Edited February 10, 2018 by Barnack

[Zakiyyah6]

Eh, the overall point remains. The film is a huge flop and people sadly will lose their jobs because of Alcon's terrible investment. Good movie but not enough people cared. If Alcon wanted a franchise they should have picked something more mainstream. 

[Barnack]

The point of the article is Alcon being hurt and how much by Blade Runner 2049 failure but do not seem to really know at all the same time even saying that maybe Father Figure failure was a bigger lost for them, while in a other article saying they took pretty much 100% of the hit...

 

Make it sound like if they do not know and are just estimating stuff like anyone could on this message board looking at the numbers out there and passing it as if they really knew something.

Edited February 10, 2018 by Barnack

[Firepower]

They just wasted too much on it, that was their biggest problem. They could have made it with 90-100 mln budget and 2 hours running time. Smaller scale, but better, more personal story. It could have been a better movie and they would have made money.

[dashrendar44]

10 hours ago, Firepower said:

They just wasted too much on it, that was their biggest problem. They could have made it with 90-100 mln budget and 2 hours running time. Smaller scale, but better, more personal story. It could have been a better movie and they would have made money.

 

There was too much pricey CGI. The irony.

Edited February 10, 2018 by dashrendar44

[aabattery]

If you're gonna bomb, bomb with style.

[Zakiyyah6]

I think a Blade Runner movie will only truly be profitable with a 75-80 mil budget. I'm factoring in the marketing budget costing just as much as the film. 

[John Marston]

9 hours ago, Ryan Reynolds said:

 

 

 

 

Sad!

[MrGlass2]

Quote

The American Society of Cinematographers celebrated their 32nd annual ASC Awards and Blade Runner 2049 walked away with the marquee Theatrical Picture Prize...

 

Blade Runner 2049 winning the theatrical trophy puts it ahead in the Oscar race. In the past 32 years, 13 ASC winners went on to receive the Academy Award for Best Cinematography. Lion won the ASC award last year, but La La Land ended up taking the Oscar. Only time will tell if Blade Runner 2049 will take the gold on March 4.

[Mr Impossible]

On 2/10/2018 at 3:13 AM, Firepower said:

They just wasted too much on it, that was their biggest problem. They could have made it with 90-100 mln budget and 2 hours running time. Smaller scale, but better, more personal story. It could have been a better movie and they would have made money.

It wouldn't have been the movie we got which is a masterpiece. 

[Firepower]

33 minutes ago, Mr Impossible said:

It wouldn't have been the movie we got which is a masterpiece. 

It's not a masterpiece, it's just good. It could have been better. The screenplay is far from perfect and the third act is really weak besides water fight scene. Some budget cuts could've helped to fix it, just like they did fix Raiders of Lost Ark when Spielberg and Lucas cut shit moments from the script because they didn't have money on them.

[Jonwo]

Ironically WB who only distributed came out unscathed for BR2049 and Father Figures although the latter was on a shelf for so long, they knew it was a stinker.

[Barnack]

On 2/10/2018 at 9:48 AM, Zakiyyah6 said:

I think a Blade Runner movie will only truly be profitable with a 75-80 mil budget. I'm factoring in the marketing budget costing just as much as the film. 

To give an scale of how low of a budget that is, Peter Jackson District 9 was 100m (99.418m) in marketing cost + the film.

 

75m in world marketing cost for all the windows is not really high for a studio movie.

 

The giant production spectacle/design/proposition of the futurist world is a main element of those movies.