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

[Eric is Quiet]

19 minutes ago, EmpireCity said:

Who cares.  The studios and production companies involved would love to make money immediately, but they know that eventually it will be worth it.  Harrison Ford, Ridley Scott and Roger Deakins aren't getting any younger and it was a chance to grab the hottest director and great young actor and do something classic.  We should all applaud them for it like we did when they gave George Miller a bag of money and turned in a masterpiece.  

 

Don't worry, the real people at Sony and Warner Bros. who financed this churn out stuff like Jumanji and Emoji Movie and Justice League and Ninjago so they can justify making the really cool shit for the proper budget.  

 

 

10 minutes ago, EmpireCity said:

The stuff people should be rolling their eyes at is things like $170m for a throw away Tarzan movie or $200m for a stupid King Arthur they supposedly had to shoot twice.  Those can be entertaining movies, but could have been done for a lot closer to $100m each.  

 

Something like Blade Runner 2049 is worth any price they throw at it.  

 

This is why you're our 2nd best Gawd.

[MrGlass2]

They didn't spend $200M on King Arthur, but $102M as far as it is reported online. Maybe it isn't true, but you can say the same for all movies.

 

And before we have a debate on the budget for Blade Runner: what is the source of that $200M figure, a tweet? Is it with the same kind of accounting that said Age of Ultron "really" cost $500M? It is impossible to know what he is talking about, especially months before release.

[Dementeleus]

We shouldn't complain about the budgets at all. We've got no skin in the game. If it's a project we're interested in, it's worth it. If it's something we're not, it's a waste.

[Barnack]

For us normally bigger the budget the better (all things being equal in term of director having creative control and not frozen by the pressure of the financial stake), as long as the movie ticket stay the same price.

[AniNate]

12 minutes ago, Telerian said:

We shouldn't complain about the budgets at all. We've got no skin in the game. If it's a project we're interested in, it's worth it. If it's something we're not, it's a waste.

 

And it's not like anyone's going to want a fast-tracked sequel to this anyway. Villeneuve's plate afterwards is also filled up so he'll still have a career regardless.

[Barnack]

46 minutes ago, MrGlass2 said:

And before we have a debate on the budget for Blade Runner: what is the source of that $200M figure, a tweet? 

 

It is a lot 200M imo, Villeneuve said in a interview:

 

“My producers are finding it fun to remind me that it will be one of the most expensive R-rated independent feature films ever made,” Villeneuve disclosed.

 

The Matrix sequels/Fury road are the biggest R-rated budget ever I think, and their "official" budget are considerably smaller than 200 and normally Blade Runner would be below those title according to that statement.

 

http://www.screendaily.com/news/blade-runner-2049-will-be-r-rated-confirms-denis-villeneuve/5112413.article?blocktitle=LATEST-FILM-NEWS-HEADLINES&contentID=44435

 

[Dementeleus]

1 minute ago, Barnack said:

 

It is a lot 200M imo, Villeneuve said in a interview:

 

“My producers are finding it fun to remind me that it will be one of the most expensive R-rated independent feature films ever made,” Villeneuve disclosed.

 

The Matrix sequels/Fury road are the biggest R-rated budget ever I think, and their "official" budget are considerably smaller than 200 and normally Blade Runner would be below those title according to that statement.

 

http://www.screendaily.com/news/blade-runner-2049-will-be-r-rated-confirms-denis-villeneuve/5112413.article?blocktitle=LATEST-FILM-NEWS-HEADLINES&contentID=44435

 

 

The record is probably considerably lower for an independent feature.

[Barnack]

9 minutes ago, Telerian said:

 

The record is probably considerably lower for an independent feature.

 

I imagine that would be the 100 million Wolf of Wall Street ? But yeah I didn't even saw the independent part of the statement, make the 200 million rumors even more strange, good way to create some buzz around the movie.

Edited April 4, 2017 by Barnack

[Dementeleus]

Just now, Barnack said:

 

I imagine that would be the 100 million Wolf of Wall Street ?

 

I actually have no idea.

[kowhite]

If this cost $200m well, yeah I don't see it making money.  I kinda doubt that number, but I'm struggling to imagine someone actually thought such a number was financially savvy.  Either somebody said fuck it, or it's lower.  Or I guess...somebody got really starry eyed about TFA numbers and ...naa I can't  believe it.  Maybe he's including P&A.

[WeneedtotalkaboutKevin]

I have a feeling that it will perform as bad as Ghost in the shell even though the movie will be a lot better in terms of quality. They are both similar with regards to the high concept. But, remember, Ghost in the shell has the hottest (physically and metaphorically) star in the world - the freaking Scarlett Johansson.  

[kowhite]

Just now, WeneedtotalkaboutKevin said:

I have a feeling that it will perform as bad as Ghost in the shell even though the movie will be a lot better in terms of quality. They are both similar with regards to the high concept. But, remember, Ghost in the shell has the hottest (physically and metaphorically) star in the world - the freaking Scarlett Johansson.  

 

There might be some nostalgia for this.  But mostly in its favor...this movie is going to be really fucking good.  It's negative?  It really probably isn't going to be mainstream sci-fi action.  But domestically I can't see this doing worse.  Who knows internationally.

[aabattery]

Worst case scenario for this is Mad Max Fury Road numbers IMO. GitS and Blade Runner are two different beasts, despite some visual similarities.

 

 

Edited April 4, 2017 by aabattery

[UrosepsisFace]

200m? So it'll look amazing! I can understand why people care about the budget because they want the movie to begin a franchise and continue to prosper. That said, why not just live in the moment and enjoy the heck out of all the great production value for the movie coming out soon. I have to admit to not really enjoying the first Blade Runner, but I'm hoping I really dig the new movie.

 

1 hour ago, WeneedtotalkaboutKevin said:

I have a feeling that it will perform as bad as Ghost in the shell even though the movie will be a lot better in terms of quality. They are both similar with regards to the high concept. But, remember, Ghost in the shell has the hottest (physically and metaphorically) star in the world - the freaking Scarlett Johansson.  

 

Google Image Ana De Armas. Blade Runner 2049 has a very pretty female lead...

[NoobSaibot]

I don't care what the budget is, either. I'm still going to see this.

[Dementeleus]

18 minutes ago, aabattery said:

Worst case scenario for this is Mad Max Fury Road numbers IMO. GitS and Blade Runner are two different beasts, despite some visual similarities.

 

 

 

WTF?

 

Worst case would be under ARRIVAL because somehow the meshing of all the various talent doesn't create a magical movie and audiences get confused and turned off.

[aabattery]

1 minute ago, Telerian said:

 

WTF?

 

Worst case would be under ARRIVAL because somehow the meshing of all the various talent doesn't create a magical movie and audiences get confused and turned off.

 

Fine.

 

Worst case scenario is unadjusted original Blade Runner numbers.

 

[kowhite]

1 hour ago, aabattery said:

Worst case scenario for this is Mad Max Fury Road numbers IMO. GitS and Blade Runner are two different beasts, despite some visual similarities.

 

 

 

Worst case Mad Max?  I mean...as excited as I am about this movie...

 

I just can't see it.  Fury Road was an amazing straight up action movie.  Quality (and it was) aside, shit blows up and the action is awesome.

 

If Blade Runner is what it should be...I just can't see it.  I hope I'm totally wrong.

[marveldcfox]

8 hours ago, antovolk said:

looks like this will be 2017's Fury Road.

 

fury road wasn't a hit. So if this does similar numbers it will be a bomb.

[EmpireCity]

11 minutes ago, marveldcfox said:

fury road wasn't a hit. So if this does similar numbers it will be a bomb.

 

No way.