Sequel, and the first was not successful at the time, it's now considered a sci-fi classic.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
'Blade Runner 2049' Is A Box Office Disaster With Poor $13M Friday
- Thread starter ronaldthump
- Start date
- Status
Sequel, and the first was not successful at the time, it's now considered a sci-fi classic.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
Eh it didn't spell it out but it was still pretty on the nose about it. There is no grander message/answer to draw from it but that is better so anyways.
OfTheOverflow
Member
Man, I try hard to convince myself that I'm not some elitist film-snob, and I just have expectations that a lot of movies fail to meet.
But seeing some people say this movie is terrible and has no redeeming qualities, that it needed lots more action, etc. really pisses me off and I'll likely end up coming off as the biggest snob by telling them that they're simply idiotic and have no appreciation for what a good film is.
But seeing some people say this movie is terrible and has no redeeming qualities, that it needed lots more action, etc. really pisses me off and I'll likely end up coming off as the biggest snob by telling them that they're simply idiotic and have no appreciation for what a good film is.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Never want to again hear the NeoGAF box office mantra of 'Fucking international audiences and their shitty taste'.
You fucked up again, America.
You fucked up again, America.
If I polled my workplace I bet less than a quarter of the people there would've even heard of it.
They should've released it in a way that the fans of the original could've better appreciated it.
IMO, a Netflix exclusive release would've done it good.
ronaldthump
Member
More_Badass
Member
How many would know about 2001?
Arrival is only "grounded" in the most superficial way. It's way out there and high concept than either Blade Runner.
Even its more grounded sci-fi parts are way dorkier than anything in Blade Runner.
So... what happens if I thought that the movie had too many big screen dolls, tits and explosions?
You know, it's possible to have issues with the movie without being a complete troglodyte. Maybe stop assuming that about people? That would be cool.
Movie cost $150 million, It only made it's budget back domestically ($154 million), but it doubled it's U.S. box office with overseas tickets, made $378 million worldwide so it ended up doing okay.
Also, this report is blowing it way out of proportion. They were only initially using the Friday estimates of $13 million to delcare it a bomb. $30 million isn't great, but coupled with the worldwide earnings it's sitting at $80 million, which isn't too bad. I think the movie's going to have legs, if not in the theater than at least on home video and streaming. Feels like somebody just wanted to be the first guy to write a box office report for the movie.
Alcon thought this had a chance of becoming their own massive blockbuster franchise.
Alcon is dumb.
ronaldthump
Member
Of course, there's this sort of over-reactionary post. There's things that BR could have easily culled to make the run time shorter. It's pace is glacial when it can be languid and still would have propelled it along better.
Just because it is so slow doesn't mean that it can't be edited quicker in parts and still have the same read. I enjoyed its pace but there were bits that could easily have been cut.
As I've previously mentioned, the bigger issue for me was the plot. But this thread is really more about how:
a) BR2049 didnt capture the imagination of the audience (marketing); and inspite of a good rotten tomato score - and 2 big stars behind it. I can understand if a general movie audience don't know who the director is.
b) BR2049 was too expensive to make
c) BR2049 even has great word of mouth as testament ITT if you tell your friends and family to go see it.
I mean, BR2049 is the top of this weeks BO....
This is where Im at. BR is a masterpiece
Probably slightly more.
It's also an office where the majority age is 45+. I really think some of y'all are overestimating the amount of appeal this film had.
Hard sci-fi, sequel to an old film that also failed at the box office, and pretty lackluster marketing (IMO).
I think if they had released this on Netflix and got some better marketing them they would've made a bigger splash. I think audiences would be more likely to take a risk on a film if it's part of a subscription service they already pay for and doesn't require them to go to all the effort and cost going to a movie already has.
Edit: think about it. If you've never seen Blade Runner, you're probably not gonna watch the sequel. Putting both on Netflix might help.
Going to a movie requires spending $10 on a ticket per person, you probably aren't gonna go by yourself, so you need another person who has seen the first one, if you have kids you have to find a way to have someone to take care of them which possibly requires more money, you're probably gonna get dinner or something at the theater which means more money, and you have to set time out of your life to do all this. Why go to a that trouble for a film you might not even enjoy?
If it was on a streaming service people could casually watch it at their leisure without the need for all of that. They'd be more likely to take a risk on a film they might not enjoy.
ronaldthump
Member
I doubt very few people dont know about either.
unless you live under a rock, you know about BR+2001.
ResidentWeevil13
Member
Uhh, what?
This wasn't a terrance malik movie. I swear, some of you have never watched a noir film in your life
I can always get behind this
Lol Netflix is already saddled with huge debt and cutting out the theater and Blu-ray market for BR isnt smart business. Netflix would have to pay 200 million minimum for that to work.
ElBoxyBrown
Banned
Ain't no way Netflix would have had the money to do this. Maybe an animated movie but no way live-action.
A moody, hard sci-fi, cerebral cyberpunk noir? No kidding.
The first movie had roughly half the budget of this one and they managed to capture "the look" just fine. Maybe they should have trusted more in their lead actor instead of spending money to hire zombie Harrison Ford? (I assume he's very expensive).
To what end? The film stands alone with or without watching the original.
More_Badass
Member
Because other remakes/reboots/reimagining of 80s sci-fi movies have done so well?
Nappuccino
Member
The sequel stands on it's own, well enough. And you really should see the original. It's great.
GoldenCrow
Member
I really don't want to see Akira made into a live action movie but if they ever get around to doing it like the constant rumours suggest I'd be happy if Villeneuve and the production team behind 2049 did it. They clearly understands how to make a sequel that is sticks close enough to the source material in every way possible whilst adding elements unique to themselves.
ronaldthump
Member
But how would a modern audience know this unless they've gone in to see it. Remember, no one knows about blade runner.
What they'll see is a new sci-fi actioner. And its got great reviews. And people aren't going to see it.
...
like total recall remake? Remakes aren't a guarantee of anything.
with the internet
People are dumb, the movie is great
ronaldthump
Member
The CGI i think is where the money's spent.
ronaldthump
Member
The internet would have told them its got a great rotten tomato score. And great audience scores.
Yep
Sticking with the theater market sure helped it succeed.
Being on Netflix doesn't mean it doesn't have to come out on Blu-Ray.
afternoon delight
Member
The internet would have told them its got a great rotten tomato score. And great audience scores.
It would have told them that it's a hard sci-fi, cerebral, cyberpunk noir that's also a slow burn like in the reviews themselves.
spindoctor
Member
About 40 people in my Saturday late night show. If that wasn't bad enough, I'd say about 15 got bored and left mid way.
I loved the movie. This is such a shame.
I loved the movie. This is such a shame.
Well, they certainly didn't spend any money on the poster. What a teal-and-orange disaster that thing is.
BTW, is there really that much CGI? I was hoping to see this thing but I strongly dislike computer animation.
More_Badass
Member
Not really
One, it's be in RPG. Two, it's the next big game from the dev of The Witcher 3, so doesn't matter what it is, tons of people are going to be interested (ie Naughty Dog going from Uncharted to Last of Us). Three, games is a medium where cyberpunk has had more notable, more plentiful, and more recent works than film. Snatcher, the original Blade Runner adventure game, Deus Ex, Syndicate, various indie games like Satellite Reign, Va11Halla, Gemini Rue, Technobabylon, Quadrilateral Cowboy, Ruiner, Observer, and so on.
Monocle
Member
Sounds like you're a contrarian.
Possible, but don't even think about claiming that if the movie doesn't resonate with the majority of viewers in my country, it's because their taste is too good.
It's an atmospheric sci-fi movie that's designed to immerse the audience in its world and give people serious time to reflect on the themes in play. The movie shouldn't be shorter just because it could be shorter. The length is appropriate for the story Villeneuve wanted to tell and the way he wanted to tell it.
ElBoxyBrown
Banned
I dont think Cyberpunk 2077 and Blade Runner 2049 are anything alike outside of their genre.
CD Projeckt Red is a household name that has just delivered a fantastic game that did well commercially and critically in the Witcher 3. While Blade Runner 2049 is a sequel of a film that did not do well commercially and is a cult classic that only the hard core fans enjoyed.
While I think Blade Runner 2049 is just a 'good' movie, not amazing as a lot of people think it is. I can fully understand why someone love it. But I fail to see why the reception of Cyberpunk 2077 would be affected by Blade Runner 2049.
When Alcon bought the rights they were forbidden from ever doing a remake so that was never an option.
And you should watch the original.
Monocle
Member
Then we would have had fans whinging that it's The Force Awakens all over again (like that's a bad thing). You can never win.
Curious Puppy
Banned
To people asking why the film had such a high budget, the answer is Harrison Ford. They probably payed him at least $20m.
Raitosaito
Member
No one left my showing, but a lot of grumbling and complaints after the credits roll. (Even during the movie too I guess)
Neff
Member
It's an unnecessary, inelegantly-named sequel to a geek cult movie which itself was never a commercial hit. It doesn't even look all that impressive next to the original. In fact I'm not even sure how they managed to make such an expensive film look so devoid of texture and contrast.
Strong word of mouth might give the movie a spike, but this limp debut doesn't surprise me.
Strong word of mouth might give the movie a spike, but this limp debut doesn't surprise me.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked