Evil Avatar

Evil Avatar (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/index.php)
-   News Items (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Blade Runner Struggles to Find an Audience at the Top of the Weekend Boxoffice Chart (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=248930)

Mad Max RW 10-10-2017 08:40 AM

The production company Alcon Entertainment is pretty much finished. Weeks ago they admitted they needed Blade Runner 2049 to gross $400 million to stay viable and there is no way in hell that is happening. The failure of the Point Break remake set them up for one last chance and they finally struck out.

t3kl3r 10-10-2017 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sticky (Post 2494987)
Happy to see more Hollywood flops. Maybe.. Just maybe... Try to be original?

I don't think this is the right movie to say that about. It may be a sequel, but that doesn't keep it from being new and unique. Ultimately it's turning out to be an example of why Hollywood is afraid of doing something new and unusual. The original and this sequel are absolutely not typical Hollywood movies.

Mostly, I think the problem is that general audiences don't really want to think too hard about their entertainment. They just want something straightforward and exciting. There's an audience for this, for sure. But maybe not one that's going to create a blockbuster at the box office.

I'm glad it was made and hope the financial outcome doesn't keep us from getting more unique sci-fi.

Syloney 10-10-2017 01:30 PM

This is just my take.

There is one major reason I can put forward for the possible low box office numbers excluding the run time. I didn't even know about the run time till when the box office numbers came in.

Looking at this year's popular Sci-fi movie releases, you will see a trend here They've been somewhat disappointments on opening weekends and possible release bombs, excluding all things released by Disney [Star Wars Rogue One and Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2]

Controversy or not, the mass public don't really fancy the Sci-fi movie genre.
Opening weekend
...............................................
Life - - - - - - - - - - - - $12.6 M
Ghost in the Shell- - - - $19 M
Transformers: TLK- - - - $45.3 M
Alien: Covenant - - - - - $36 M
Valerian and th...- - - - - $17 M
...............................................
Blade Runner 2049- - - - $32.7M
...............................................

vallor 10-11-2017 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syloney (Post 2495049)
Controversy or not, the mass public don't really fancy the Sci-fi movie genre.
Opening weekend
...............................................
Life - - - - - - - - - - - - $12.6 M
Ghost in the Shell- - - - $19 M
Transformers: TLK- - - - $45.3 M
Alien: Covenant - - - - - $36 M
Valerian and th...- - - - - $17 M
...............................................
Blade Runner 2049- - - - $32.7M
...............................................

That's pretty telling, and a real shame. And surprising at the same time that something which is usually a sure bet, like Transformers, got blitzed in the wake of Superhero movies (sandwiched between WW and Spiderman).

However $400m is a BIG damn expectation to make on a film like Blade Runner. Considering it's history and the last few years of harder sci-fi box office. If that's what Alcon needs to save their company I guess it's time to wave goodbye. Maybe they deserve it after that dumb ass remake of Point Break.

Assuming a reported $155m budget + $75m marketing spend, a normal fall off, and the standard 6 weeks in the theater BR2049 will need to hit at least a 33% domestic/66% international box office split to make it's money back which I think is doable. That gets them maybe ~$300-$350m if it really, really stretches to a 20/80 split. That ratio isn't unheard of and better ones have been seen; the Warcraft movie did something similar but it was a cheaper movie and marketing in China to an audience of game fans.

Unfortunately for Alcon profit is split between Alcon and Sony for production and Warner for distro. If Alcon needs $400m itself they are screwed. To do that they'd need to hit the rarified air that only 10 or so movies EVER have hit: 10/90. Like Fast and Furious 5 and 8 (I think it was 5... it might have been 6) which got 90% of their gross overseas (mostly China) and only 10% domestically (~$150m domestic and $1b++ overseas).

BR2049 is very lucky there isn't much competition for screens until Thor comes out in early November. From now till then are mostly novelty Halloween movies with just a few real competitors like, arguably, the Foreigner so BR will be able to keep screens longer than they otherwise might.

Unless Justice League and Suicide Squad 2 completely change the perception of DC comic movies they're done and are better off doubling down on their TV shows. MCU will rule the roost for the next 4 years while more adult properties to start showing up as even regular people start vomiting at yet another comic movie. Especially since I think the transition to Phase 3 with the "New Avengers" is going to be more rocky than they think.

I hear Spawn is in the works but that's years out. That's all the "adult fare" we're likely to see in the way of "sci-fi" on the silver screen after this next round of real sci-fi tapers out. If Sci-fi goes through another year with numbers like the above it'll likely be gone for a while in mainstream circles.

Evil Avatar 10-11-2017 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syloney (Post 2495049)
Controversy or not, the mass public don't really fancy the Sci-fi movie genre.
Opening weekend
...............................................
Life - - - - - - - - - - - - $12.6 M
Ghost in the Shell- - - - $19 M
Transformers: TLK- - - - $45.3 M
Alien: Covenant - - - - - $36 M
Valerian and th...- - - - - $17 M
...............................................
Blade Runner 2049- - - - $32.7M
...............................................

Most of those were really sucky films. I think you would need to take a look at the box office for some good films to come to any conclusions about the genre as a whole. Certainly, GotG and Star Wars both pull in over a Billion per movie and there are probably examples of other Sci Fi films that have done well. I jus think what you are saying is that it was a really weak year for Sci Fi overall.

Evil Avatar 10-11-2017 01:00 AM

I heard the Budget for Blade Runner was 180 million + another 90 million on marketing. So, um... yea.

vallor 10-11-2017 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evil Avatar (Post 2495085)
Certainly, GotG and Star Wars both pull in over a Billion per movie and there are probably examples of other Sci Fi films that have done well. I jus think what you are saying is that it was a really weak year for Sci Fi overall.

The numbers specifically removed Disney flicks which would otherwise skew the data.

Remove Star Wars and MCU movies and you're left with a pretty dismal opening weekend box office for any other sci-fi movie.

To argue the others movies some how deserved to get nuked into the ground opening weekend is disingenuous.

you might be right with some of them but several clearly have all the makings of successful opening weekend movies. Mega star power (Life, Ghost in the Shell), great reviews (Life), and/or guaranteed blockbuster properties (Transformers).

I don't think you can blame your opinion they were shit movies. In fact I found a couple of them pretty entertaining. Enough to wish I'd seen them on the big screen so I could see the spectacle.

vallor 10-11-2017 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evil Avatar (Post 2495086)
I heard the Budget for Blade Runner was 180 million + another 90 million on marketing. So, um... yea.

Not sure what the marketing spend is but you're closer than I am on the production budget: $185m according to this. Currently sitting at about $90m combined domestic and international. Hasn't opened in Asia yet. Let's hope China loves it; everyone seems to count on China these days. If not it may hit $200m or $250m lifetime box office.

Maybe all the people working at Alcon should send Trump a handwritten letter to be nice to China until next month.

Evil Avatar 10-11-2017 01:44 AM

The marketing budget for most AAA films is about 1/2 the production costs. So, when they spend $300 Million on Ghostbusters, they also spent another $150 Million on marketing costs. That’s a general rule and I’m sure there is some kind of upper limit to what they are willing to spend.

Worth mentioning that if that is true, Marvel/Disney spends an average of $150 Million on each super hero movie and then only $75 million on marketing... to bring back between 800 milllion and a billion. That’s some good math.

For the most part, Hollywood is made up of creative financing. If Sony loses $200+ million on Ghostbusers, they take it as a tax write-off against some other huge hit like Spider-Man, allowing them to keep nearly all of the money they make in profits.

There may be production companies, like you mention Alcon, that die when a big project flops, but the studios as a whole generally do pretty good because of all the creative financing.

Juan 10-11-2017 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t3kl3r (Post 2494925)
Personally I find it frustrating how many people require ongoing excitement throughout a movie to keep their interest. I often miss the slow buildup many older movies had that allowed you to get absorbed in what's happening and helped you get to know the characters before the important stuff starts happening. So many movies just start off with the flash bang approach, and it actually makes it hard for me to get into them (even if I can still enjoy that kind of movie for what it is).


People today only seem to enjoy the super hero crap churned out every 3 months by Hollywood. All of these films follow the same formula which is to base the movie around 4 - 8 huge action scenes interspersed with poor character building and some humanising plot angle (romance, coming of age etc). It's lowest common denominator stuff but audiences eat it up so that's now all we get these days.

Movies like Heat, Goodfellas, Aliens etc are not what people want these days. They just want Iron Man to blow up a Ferrari before speeding off to save his high school sweetheart from an exploding skyscraper.

Skunk 10-11-2017 05:47 AM

You all are talking about why the movie may have flopped and it seems like nobody noticed that nobody saw any fucking movies over the Columbus Day weekend, period.

Yeah yeah 30mil is a flop, but it crushed everything around it all the same. It was the most viewed movie of the weekend.

I think it may have just been a bad weekend to open on. I caught it on Friday at an IMAX theater and it was totally amazing. The pacing is up to 2017 standard without giving up any of the moodiness or scene-setting that defined the original. I'm thoroughly impressed with the director's ability to execute on his vision while building on the original's theme of what it means to be human/alive.

vallor 10-11-2017 01:16 PM

I think it's interesting to mention that Waterworld, long considered the litmus test for big budget flops, made:
  • $21m opening weekend
  • $88m domestic
  • $175m International
  • $263 lifetime total box office

Unfortunately Box Office Mojo doesn't break out how much of that International gross was made in Asia that far back but it certainly wasn't considered the major market then that it is now. We'll know more when we see the Asian market opening. Aw, hell, who are we kidding. We'll know more when we see the China opening.

Mad Max RW 10-11-2017 02:39 PM

The thing about China is almost all of the money made in theaters never goes back to the production company. It would have to make the equivalent multiple billions of dollars to mean anything.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:04 AM.