Jump to content
Andrew Reid

Blade Runner 2049 bombs at box office

Recommended Posts

EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

@pablogrollan

My point is that we have no way of knowing how much money was spent, and where (in which markets) on marketing. And you are still stuck on Domestic grosses. 35$M opening domestically might be poor but also kinda irrelevant.

I really don't care about measuring a films success on box office numbers, and especially just domestic numbers. I'm just quite happy the film is made.

 

I anticipate a performance similar to that of The Martian or The Revenant, i.e pretty low domestic openings, while maintaining a 30-35% domestic- and 65-70% foreign gross.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Took the original Blade Runner a long time to get legs....it was considered a box office bomb at the time, but in many respects it's become a reference film for great filmmaking...the 400 million for marketing could well be part of the "Hollywood Accounting" strategy. It seems like a ridiculous amount of marketing...though I haven't seen it yet, the budget for making a film like this seems in line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, meudig said:

I really don't care about measuring a films success on box office numbers, and especially just domestic numbers. I'm just quite happy the film is made.

That is contradictory.  If it doesn't make box office or rental numbers there won't be any more movies made.  Hollywood isn't running a charity.  No matter how sweet and nice Harvey Weinstein seems.

2 hours ago, Fritz Pierre said:

...the 400 million for marketing could well be part of the "Hollywood Accounting" strategy. It seems like a ridiculous amount of marketing...though I haven't seen it yet, the budget for making a film like this seems in line.

$400 million is Andrew's estimate for TOTAL, not just marketing costs.  Still seems crazy but it isn't out of line.  Valerian cost $180 million to make...

Quote

To eke out a profit, Valerian needs to gross at least $400 million.

http://www.newsweek.com/2017/07/14/valerian-movie-weekend-review-spic-expensive-sci-fi-632026.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Damphousse said:

That is contradictory.  If it doesn't make box office or rental numbers there won't be any more movies made.  Hollywood isn't running a charity.  No matter how sweet and nice Harvey Weinstein seems.

I don't really think it is, maybe I wasn't making myself clear enough. I refered to opening weekends. Obviously film is a business and they have to be profitable. I just don't really subscribe to the "instant domestic success".

Notice how I also refered to The Martian and The Revenant, which are 100M$ and 135M$ (production budget) films respectively, with low domestic opening weekends. Now roughly two years after release they have grossed 630M$ and 530M$ respectively. I would not consider them box office bombs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, meudig said:

I don't really think it is, maybe I wasn't making myself clear enough. I refered to opening weekends. Obviously film is a business and they have to be profitable. I just don't really subscribe to the "instant domestic success".

Notice how I also refered to The Martian and The Revenant, which are 100M$ and 135M$ (production budget) films respectively, with low domestic opening weekends. Now roughly two years after release they have grossed 630M$ and 530M$ respectively. I would not consider them box office bombs. 

The Martian is PG-13 (larger potential audience), skewed more heavily female, did better with younger audiences (2049 was 86% over 25) and did $54m+ on its opening weekend. In fact its second weekend was better than 2049's debut at $37m, because of all the buzz it had terrific legs. It also did $228m in the US alone. Blade Runner might not reach that with its total global gross. Hollywood accounting aside, the studio has to be disappointed with returns of less than $8000 per theater for such a wide release - and it barely topped $50m outside the US. The Revenant got a seriously fat boost from all the Oscar nods, going from $54m in grosses before nominees were announced to $170m+. But to counter your point - opening weekends can be a fairly accurate predictor of overall success as 25-35% of the total gross typically comes in the first week of release. This one seemingly had a built in audience so it would be front loaded. If that's the case it could drop off the cliff pretty quick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Trek of Joy

Hey! Thank you for the interesting points of extra stats that would come into play. I still think domestic opening weekend numbers are somewhat irrelevant.

28 minutes ago, Trek of Joy said:

opening weekends can be a fairly accurate predictor of overall success as 25-35% of the total gross typically comes in the first week of release.

The following is just to humour myself, please dont take it the wrong way :)

If we follow this fairly accurate predictor (does it include rentals, dvd, blueray and streaming etc or just theatre by the way?) we would get the following numbers:

Domestic opening weekend: 35M$

Assuming a 35(Domestic) to 65(Foreign) ratio:

Foreign opening weekend 65M$

Total:

Assuming 25% of revenue the opening weekend:

Domestic: 35M x 4 = 140M

Foreign: 65M x 4 = 260M

 

Thus giving us Worldwide gross of 140M + 260M = 400M 

 

wow, they will make the break-even point :)

 

 

Again the last bit was not serious.

Edit: 

I just saw released numbers of that 50M$ foreign gross. Keep in mind it haven't premiered in South Korea or Japan yet as stated in my first post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Watched it today. Have a direct comparision to the original, as I have watched it for the first time right before some friends and me went to

the cinema. The original was very enjoyable as was the recent incarnation. Both with similarities but total different beasts in other ways.

2049 is a real cinematic experience like the first one is. The longer and calmer scenes gave it its own rhythm and tension. Some of the deaths felt not necessary nor helpful

for the story and the film itself. The photography is impressive and must be seen on a big screen. The bigger the better. James Bernadellis review describes

the qualities of this film very well. Visually it´s a masterpiece, plot wise it does fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just came back from the movie and I entrered the cinema with maxotics notion in mind. If this really were Personal passion project there wouldn't be so much mainstream content in the film, and the philosophic aspects would be a few levels above teenager masturbations. 

While watching the movie a 70 years old couple answered the phone two times, two  fat people in front of me opened three soda cans and a few gigantic snack bags that made horrible sounds, the projector lens had problems because the keystone correction was at max so the upper part of the screen exibited chromatic aberration, etc...

Anyway, at least it was in my 27.000 people hometown shit hole and I only paid 5€ to see it, can't ask for more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2017‎-‎10‎-‎07 at 5:04 PM, Damphousse said:

Oh, sh-t.  I didn't realize they spent that much on marketing.  Ouch.

They didn't. That is the "creative accounting" figure that they came up with to write off against profits so they minimize or eliminate tax.

On ‎2017‎-‎10‎-‎07 at 12:42 PM, Andrew Reid said:

 

I just wish I was more a fan of the overall cinema experience of people munching stinking nachos in your fucking ear whilst talking constantly. (To be fair this isn't as common in Berlin as some other places but I lucked out and got to sit next to a dirty old corporation man on a date with his 18 year old intern)

What is wrong with 18 year old interns? Jealous? I bet he thought he lucked out as well, but not because he was sitting next to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, meudig said:

My point is that we have no way of knowing how much money was spent, and where (in which markets) on marketing. And you are still stuck on Domestic grosses. 35$M opening domestically might be poor but also kinda irrelevant.

I'm not stuck with domestic grosses, where do you get that impression? In fact, this movie was probably greenlit mostly because of foreign market revenue since the original Blade Runner was a flop in the US. It is a cult movie nowadays so it could gather a worldwide audience to make it financially viable -let's hope it does-.

The issue is that whatever international distributors spent on international marketing is irrelevant to studios. Most of the times, studios make movies, market them and exploit them in the US -where they control the whole production chain up to movie theatres-. That's why we can sort of calculate how much they spent and their break-even point. International distributors usually pay for their own marketing campaigns and simply give back 50% of the BO gross.

12 hours ago, meudig said:

Thus giving us Worldwide gross of 140M + 260M = 400M 

 

wow, they will make the break-even point :)

 

 

Again the last bit was not serious.

Well, that prediction may not be far off! giving a x4 performance through its box office is kinda optimistic, though. That would be an ideal -yet possible- scenario given the good reviews and word of mouth. Take into account that more "hyped" movies like the Twilight films only manage to double the first weekend gross during their box office life. And no, those figures do not include DVD/Blu-ray, Streaming on TV rights... those are the very last chance for the producers to get their money back. Hey, even Waterworld eventually broke even... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we often see that massively-hyped films with great opening weekends often fail to sustain their momentum as word of mouth gets around that they're not actually that great! Hopefully BR2049 will do the opposite (I haven't actually seen it yet, but I'm salivating at what I've seen so far of Deakins's photography).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/10/2017 at 9:42 PM, Andrew Reid said:

I just wish I was more a fan of the overall cinema experience of people munching stinking nachos in your fucking ear whilst talking constantly. (To be fair this isn't as common in Berlin as some other places but I lucked out and got to sit next to a dirty old corporation man on a date with his 18 year old intern)

That's pretty much the reason I stopped going to the Sony Center kino - it got too much. Yorck Kinos, while smaller, are so much better.

Saw the film last night and really really enjoyed it. The photography is stunning, continues the really good work Deakins has done with Villeneuve over the past couple of films together. Every shot is beautifully put together and it was so refreshing to watch a Hollywood blockbuster taking its time with pacing and mood setting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried to like it.  The sets, fx and cinematography are certainly first rate.  The actors are good, the direction, the editing.  I was able to sit through it.

Then the scene with the Wallace CEO, head cataract guy, that was NOT a

On 10/8/2017 at 9:05 PM, Nikkor said:

few levels above teenager masturbations

Okay, I was a young guy once and can understand dropping a naked women out of a pastry sack and letting her writhe on the floor a bit.  I can even understand the actor with the cataracts blathering the most inane stuff  to his replicant!  (And we thought Gossling was lonely :) ) But to knife her for no apparent reason put me into full annoyance mode.  Why do we need to hate him, and if we do, why doesn't he get killed at the end like the maker in the first movie?  

In the first Blade Runner, there is a simple, strong story that keeps that morose movie together.  Harrison Ford is in a sucky job, in a sucky city, hunting down merciless replicants.  His life is meaningless.  Then he falls in love with a replicant and begins to have doubts about his life values.  Meanwhile, Rutger Hauer, knows his lot in life and wants to understand why it was made for him.  So he searches out his maker.  In the end, even though he is bred to kill, he has compassion and let's Harrison Ford live.  The original Blade Runner put story first.

What is the story of Blade Runner 2049?  There is none, there are only pieces of story, none of which connect or make much sense.  My fear that it's just a vanity project with too many cooks in the kitchen was borne out, for me.  My favorite proof that  no one with common sense had any control over the script is when the Wallace replicant kills a police forensics guy THEN the police chief and says to Harrison Ford that they're going to take him off-world where they can torture him.  I'm wondering why they can't do it on Earth?  I mean, there is no sense of society, government, police power.  Again, just a mis-mash of half-baked story ideas.   And why kill the police chief.  Makes absolutely no sense.  

I never cared about any of the characters, except Gossling's hologram.   Though I keep thinking, if Wallace industries makes her, why don't they know what he says to her?  I guess someone got their "let's put in a little bit of 'Her' in BR 2049"  You're in trouble when the only good thing about your movie is the little bit you plagiarized from another ;)

And the music.  I don't care how good it is, it did not fit the story most of the time.  There were many scenes that would have been stronger without it.  Film-maker children with sound synthesized sound-grenades.

I heard a young person leaving the theater saying it was "much better than the first one."  

On a bright note, I just finished "Trapped", the Icelandic series.  Great film-making isn't dead.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/10/2017 at 1:17 AM, PannySVHS said:

 

Watched it today. Have a direct comparision to the original, as I have watched it for the first time right before some friends and me went to

the cinema. The original was very enjoyable as was the recent incarnation. Both with similarities but total different beasts in other ways.

2049 is a real cinematic experience like the first one is. The longer and calmer scenes gave it its own rhythm and tension. Some of the deaths felt not necessary nor helpful

for the story and the film itself. The photography is impressive and must be seen on a big screen. The bigger the better. James Bernadellis review describes

the qualities of this film very well. Visually it´s a masterpiece, plot wise it does fine.

I enjoy reading your posts but I think it's time to say - you don't need to press enter at the end of every line when you post on here. It will wrap around automatically like this...

On 09/10/2017 at 1:17 AM, PannySVHS said:

Watched it today. Have a direct comparision to the original, as I have watched it for the first time right before some friends and me went to the cinema. The original was very enjoyable as was the recent incarnation. Both with similarities but total different beasts in other ways. 2049 is a real cinematic experience like the first one is. The longer and calmer scenes gave it its own rhythm and tension. Some of the deaths felt not necessary nor helpful for the story and the film itself. The photography is impressive and must be seen on a big screen. The bigger the better. James Bernadellis review describes the qualities of this film very well. Visually it´s a masterpiece, plot wise it does fine.

And this is much easier to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

I enjoy reading your posts but I think it's time to say - you don't need to press enter at the end of every line when you post on here. It will wrap around automatically like this...

And this is much easier to read.

 

Oh, this sounds at first a little bit strict to me. On second thought, thank you very much for opening your suggestion with such kind words. I almost did it again:)  @maxotics , putting the word SPOILER here for those who have not watched the film yet, so spoiler alert!- I thought the same, the killing of the newly born adult replicant was very unpleasant and seemed like a vehicle for Jared Leto only to show off his acting. In general I felt his character was like Stallone in his 80ies flicks, showing off some prowess, not in muscles but in grim looks. Remember when Stallone flexed his muscles in every shot, just like a fitness poser on instagram? :) That´s how I felt about Jared Letos character- just an opportunity to let him give us his wicked looks. Bautistas role at the beginning of the movie on the other hand was a very well written, with a fine performance of his.

On 9.10.2017 at 4:34 PM, Gregormannschaft said:

That's pretty much the reason I stopped going to the Sony Center kino - it got too much. Yorck Kinos, while smaller, are so much better.

Saw the film last night and really really enjoyed it. The photography is stunning, continues the really good work Deakins has done with Villeneuve over the past couple of films together. Every shot is beautifully put together and it was so refreshing to watch a Hollywood blockbuster taking its time with pacing and mood setting. 

Did you watch it on Sunday then, 20.30, Neukölln Arkaden? That´s were I went. I was a little bit annoyed about the emercency lights in the beginning, which were left and the right of the screen. Also, for this movie I would have enjoyed a bigger screen. It´s  a film one might be able to enjoy even more in the privacy of a home theater, close to the large TV screen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched it at the Sony centre, Cinestar and they had an interval less than half way in where they flash up an advert for ice cream and everybody waits around in the light for 10 minutes or goes to the bathroom. Really improves the atmosphere of the film! Not!

Apart from that the cinema is nice.

Apart from the people...

And the advertising...

And the ticket prices (14 euros)

They also have it on the larger IMAX screen there too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In its defense the box office aint been doing too well in general. A movie breaking 30 million in the era of NETFLIX, HULU & video on demand is a miracle. 30 million at the box office is like splitting the red sea at this point ! People have abandoned the theaters and even broadcast television ! Imagine if they made Blade Runner a NETFLIX only movie release ? 

I've yet to see it and im pumped to see it even with movies like "It" out but less face it...the big screen is on its way to being a dead platform :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, kidzrevil said:

In its defense the box office aint been doing too well in general. A movie breaking 30 million in the era of NETFLIX, HULU & video on demand is a miracle. 30 million at the box office is like splitting the red sea at this point ! People have abandoned the theaters and even broadcast television ! Imagine if they made Blade Runner a NETFLIX only movie release ? 

I've yet to see it and im pumped to see it even with movies like "It" out but less face it...the big screen is on its way to being a dead platform :(

Yet even though growth slowed to 1% last year, 2016 was still the all-time record for global box office - in the UK it was far and away the best ever year. I think you're correct, though, in the case of films that aren't aimed at teenagers - for more thoughtful fare the trend is definitely towards home viewing. Who knows what will happen, but it will be a sad day when movies like BR2014, Dunkirk and so on can't be shown on the big screen, where their visual beauty can be properly appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, kidzrevil said:

In its defense the box office aint been doing too well in general. A movie breaking 30 million in the era of NETFLIX, HULU & video on demand is a miracle. 30 million at the box office is like splitting the red sea at this point ! People have abandoned the theaters and even broadcast television ! Imagine if they made Blade Runner a NETFLIX only movie release ? 

I've yet to see it and im pumped to see it even with movies like "It" out but less face it...the big screen is on its way to being a dead platform :(

Convergence culture is king. Whilst the big screen is important, accessibility is even more important. Of course you can have both the theatre release as well as the streaming release. Obviously they might be opposing forces.

I co-wrote a dissertation about horror films last spring (speaking of "It"), and while I learned alot about building suspense, I realised how cheaply they can be made and how well they can perform at the box office. The last couple of years has been great in that genre, with films making two times their budget on the opening weekends. Maybe the only genre that can to that, persistently, in this day and age.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...