Blade Runner 2049

>>82530267
>Who the fuck thought this was a good idea?
a bunch of old jews who think the bland runner name, the goose, and old Ford boy equals sales

File: Warner_Bros._Pictures_logo.png (473KB, 806x701px) Image search: [Google]

473KB, 806x701px

>>82530267
The biggest retards on earth that's who

>>82530267
Arrival coasted on its good reviews to around $200 million.

If Blade Runner 2049 is good and is marketed well enough, it should pull in a decent sum. Probably around $350-400 million

>>82530333
Warner Brothers is the studio that has won more oscars since 2000

Disney is the big studio that has won the least oscars since 2000

>>82530493
oscars are a racket

>>82530493
Ho boy that oscar certainly makes me want to rewatch suicide squad.

>>82530539
and yet they still have participation award shows. really makes you think.

>>82530267
Deadpool.

I'm glad there are still high budget r-rated films thank you very much, fuck you

>>82530493
Bullshit and who gives a fuck about Oscars they're worthless

Now which has had more billion dollar movies since 2000?

>>82530539
>>82530573
Disney is an artistically dead studio and you should shill for a better company

(((Hollywood)))

>>82530441
arrival only made 198m and didn't have anything like a 200m budget and it was only pg13

plebs and manchildren love r-rated blockbusters. see: deadpool, logan.

>>82530573
>capeshit
>82530625
>box office
So the negativity came from disney shills after all, good to know

>villeneuve directing a movie with more than 1 word in the title

rreeeeeeeeeee

>>82530728
Neither had a budget over $100 million because studios that AREN'T FUCKING RETARDED know R-Rated movies don't make much

>>82530493
Hahahahaha how can anyone be so far up their own ass they defend the Oscars

>>82530600
Had a tiny budget by comparison.

>>82530895
It's all WB shills have they're movies are massive failures both financially and critically, they're bleeding money fast, and are seen as a laughingstock by literally everyone

At this point AT&T shutting them down after the buyout is a mercy

>>82530267
not to mention it the original is a small niche fan base.

>>82530267
Weird. It looks only marginally better than Dredd 3D which had a 50 mil budget give or take.

>>82530493
Saving this, it looks like disney shills get assmad as fuck

>>82530493
>oscars
Wew

File: 1277592484380.jpg (204KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 960x960px

Looking forward to see how many people will be in the cinema when I go watch it.
No normies know what blade runner is.

>>82530851
r rated movies last year only made between 50 and 110m

obviously they're only doing this as an creative project (because the artists have been lucrative in the past ), marketing opportunity or hope to cash in on wider sales impact /cult following

the latter is properly a good bet because while r rated don't normally reach 150-200 NOT ONE of them has had the cultural impact as bladerunner.

>>82530573

Don't be cruel. The Oscar thing is all DCucks have to cling to.

>>82530493
Factually correct, thank you anon

File: f8e.jpg (360KB, 1162x850px) Image search: [Google]

360KB, 1162x850px

London has fallen made 205.8 m
if Bladerunner2049 makes that than it will have profited after production costs but seemingly failed after marketing costs

>>82531077
Man, that looks so comfy....

>>82530267
Not to worry, most of that budget is laundered money.

>>82530493
BVS flopped. It's been over a year. Get over it.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCcx85zbxz4
looks over dramatic as fuck, as expected

goddamn it

I dont belive this movie will have budget of 200 million $,.Thats insane amount of money for an R-rated movie.The actual budget probably is 80 to 90 million $,120 maximum.

>>82531093
>creative project
I think this is it. I think they want a critical darling that sweeps the oscars so they can build the career of everyone involved, which surely they had signed decade long contracts already

File: aabf55d7a66f955e68a5347bb461d203.jpg (541KB, 843x1192px) Image search: [Google]

541KB, 843x1192px

>>82531077
Yes they do, Blade runner is not an obscure film.

This flick is going to have an ultimate extended director's cut isn't it?

>>82531680
>slow, minimalist version of classic theme plays in order to force a sense of familiarity in viewers of the original

they need to stop this shit

>>82531680
>YOU'RE SPECIAL
>THIS IS YOUR STORY

Why do Americans do this?

Am I the only one that thinks it looks way too ciche sci fi and not enough noir /cyberpunk ?

I mean, I will definitely watch and will probably enjoy it, but it seems that most people nowadays doing sci fi don't care about what made cyberpunk as good as it was. It's not the robots and wacky technology, but the desolation, loneliness and darkness of a world without compassion.

>>82531970
Problem is, Blade Runner is cliche. It established those cliches, but that doesn't make it better now. It just doesn't look interesting or unique anymore. And let's face it, the story Blade Runner was always shit, the movie only worked on a visual level.

>>82531810
Yes but only after Scott finishes with his dick stroking aliens project allowing Villeneuve to make a directors cut.

>>82530267
>Blade Runner 2049
>R-rated movie

Sex bots confirmed?

File: 1390215821710.jpg (60KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 600x600px

>>82532062
>the story Blade Runner was always shit
>the movie only worked on a visual level.

>>82530322
THE FIRST BLADE RUNNER WAS A FLOP COMMERCIALLY, CRITICS DIDNT LIKE IT MUCH EITHER

NOW ITS A TOWERING GIANT OF SCIFI

>>82531970
I don't want them to make Blade Runner again though, the movie is looking for an aesthetic on its own, midway between sci-fi and noir more than cyberpunk, and going by the trailer they do a good job about it

>>82532148
Have you rewatched it lately? The story is a huge mess, it barely comes together. All it has going for it is the atmosphere and the visuals and the music. And you can't recapture that decades later, it was part of the world that's now gone.

>>82530267
>Who the fuck thought this was a good idea?
People with artistic integrity

>>82531970
I noticed they seem to be going for a more geopolitical story instead of a personal one. I don't think this'll work

>>82532203
What was hard to follow that made the story a mess?

>>82532148
m8 Blade Runner's plot is terrible and a mess. Themes do not equal plot btw before you try to respond with some 2deep4u analysis.

>>82532165
>midway between sci-fi and noir more than cyberpunk

....midway between sci-fi and noir IS cyberpunk

>>82532245
>female romantic interest looks at protagonist
>"YOU'RE SPECIAL"

>>82532247
It's not that it's hard to follow it's just that the story is so pointless only the tears in the rain line barely saves it in the end.

>>82532245
This probably worries me the most. BR worked so well because it was the story of a man that just happens to occur inside a deep cyberpunk world. Sci fi works best when they don't shove the sci fi par down your throat.

>>82530807
Bladerunner

>>82530267
At the very least it'll sell decent due to name recognition

Im just gonna miss Rutger Hauers performance.

>>82531214
Movies need at to at least double profits to be a success, if you're spending 200 million on a project you want 200 million in profit

File: 1364299816818.jpg (74KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 500x500px

>there are children on /tv/ right now that actually think this flick looks good

It'll made about $300M plus another $80M on blurays just because of how good it looks alone

>>82532062
Millennials need to leave.

File: 21743707.jpg (53KB, 312x503px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 312x503px

>>82531077
>>82531792

Normies know bladerunner, but they don't know this paper-kino

I'm not impressed by the trailer desu. The LA parts are too well light, the whole scenery is too clean.

File: 1493850203537.jpg (20KB, 480x451px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 480x451px

>>82531077
THAT DOGGO IS FUCKIN ENORMOUS

DOMESTICATING WOLVES WAS SOME BALLSY SHIT

>>82530708
Arrival wasn't coasting on a known brand's success.

>>82531077
>No normies know what blade runner is.

What kind of boonies do you live in?

>>82531905
It's the (((AMERICAN DREAM))), after all.

>>82532627
Literally everyone knows that this is the book Blade Runner is based on. Stop trying to feel special.

>>82532582
>everyone under 37 needs to leave

I bet you don't even qualify.

>>82532994
I'm 39.

Anyone who says Blade Runner (the original) is shit simply doesn't understand it properly.

>oh no we lost money
>launders tens of millions in jew gold

>>82532627
pretty shit book my dude

>>82530267
Don't forget it also has an estimated $150M advertising budget. They'll be lucky to break even.

>>82532754
>The LA parts are too well light, the whole scenery is too clean.
I agree. I don't get the vibe of a decadent world, it looks even cozy.

It might be just for the trailer though.

>>82530267
>Who the fuck thought this was a good idea?
Me, for instance.
>>82530333
That's not Sony.
Now those guys are fucking desperate to make some money.

>>82532627
Times where the film was better than the source material.

>>82530267
>>82530333
People that are more interested in taking chances that going for the easy pg13 way.

Its not that you cant make a good pg13 film, or that all R rated movies are good. Its a statement on how the artistic vision of the film is placed before the marketing and pure profits.

Free countries dont have R ratings, N words, SJW's and PC.

>>82533199
It's because Ridley Scott and other directors really want to make R rated films and are using the success of Logan and Deadpool to prove they can do it.

>>82532558
This board is so overrun, it's sick.

Which is the best cut of the original? Dricetors or Final? Is there much of a difference.

>>82530267
Fuck, I can't bring my wife's son if it's R

>>82530333
FYI, it's being funded by Warner Bros and Sony.

Warner Bros just has US rights though

>>82533572
Final. Don't bother with the others.

>>82530493
>muh Oscars
Completely irrelevant. What the studios care about is MONEY. They like to be jerked off by the academy but they would happily trade all of that masturbation for a fat pile of cash.

Every time I see Harrison Ford, his acting is real shabby
Is that the point? Is he supposed to look like he doesn't know why he is there all the time?

>>82533785
Thank you

>>82532766
Or the guy is a manlet

>>82533572
Final cut > director's cut > international theatrical cut > US theatrical cut

I haven't seen the workprint cut.

>>82530267
The trailer looks worse than ghost in the shell.

>>82533921
No it doesn't.

>>82533861
He just doesn't give a shit anymore. Not like he put in a huge amount of effort in the first place. He was never a great actor.

>>82530333
I don't know, have you checked their revenue figures recently?

>>82532553
That's the dumbest thing I've heard. As long as you are making marginally more than what the production cost you are being succesful

>>82533944
Yeah it does.
Looks boring and lifeless. Gits looked way more like a updated bladerunner than this pile of garbage.

>>82531905
It's the Chinese

Hollywood doesn't make money off of Americans since they are poor now and instead used dumbed down English and face culture to appeal to slants eyed retards who are seeing movies for the first time

If you're a shut in, pay for the ticket online and then pirate it later.

DONT LET IT FAIL GOYS

>>82530267
Shut the fuck up and go and pay for it you fucking faggot and maybe we won't get more shitty watered down capeshit masquerading as sci-fi in the future

Cunt.

>>82534013
How is this capeshit?

>>82530573
You actually started watching that movie AND finished it? What the fuck were you thinking?

>>82533082
>Anyone who says Blade Runner (the original) is shit
Didn't say that though. I said the story is shit. Which it is. Movie itself is good, but not because of the story.

>>82530493
>>82530626
>>82530751
>>82531013
You faggots are the shills. Every time someone mocks Warner Bros. you go into full damage control mode and spam Disney hate even though no one was comparing WB to Disney.

>budget is more than 50 mil, ever

It's like you don't want to ever make money!

>>82530851
If Interstellar got 600million with warm reviews, this will easily break 700m given it is literally the sequel to one of the most beloved films of all time

>>82532465
You just didn't get it or what?
The whole film is about man-god relationship and every fucking scene, even the fucking shootout at the start have meaning to the backplot to the movie.
It really isn't just a movie about some silly androids being fancy faggots on earth.

>>82534031
I'm saying this isn't capeshit, but the spotty faced 17 year old whinging OP is the sort of person who wants sci-fi to be as watered-down and child-friendly as possible, i.e. psuedo-capeshit masquerading as sci-fi. You should be glad this is R-rated

>>82534075
/tv/ mathematicians say this movie will have to make 1.5 billion to be in the black.

>>82534062
probably because Disney is unironically cancer that hasn't made a single half-decent big budget film in decades and panders to niggers and nu-males at every opportunity. kys

Imagine being the sort of person who goes to watch guardians of the galaxy or the new spiderman but not this

File: 71657074.png (198KB, 365x353px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 365x353px

>>82530267
>implying this is bad
A proper Blade Runner sequel should be rated R and have a massive budget. You can't cheap out, the gorgeous sets and models were the best part of the original film.

>>82534147
No one was talking about Disney until you showed up. Fuck off, WB shill. Your employers are making tons of retarded decisions. Although I'll admit that I think they've made a lot of good decisions regarding Blade Runner 2049.

>>82532627
Is this good? I found Man in the High Castle quite good.

>>82534075
>one of the most beloved films of all time

millenians haven't even heard of Blade Runner

>>82533976
There are a large variety of factors that a studio looks at to determine if a film was profitable. To know 100% what those are is difficult but it is common knowledge in Hollywood that 2x the production budget is generally the safe area for minimum profitability. Most of this has to do with the fact that marketing is not factored into the production budget and the marketing budget is generally anywhere from 75% to 100% of the production budget.

>>82534339
>millennials are the entire population and not an increasingly-embarrassing subset of it

wrong.gif

200m budget for a Blade Runner movie is insane.

File: 1351640339134.png (325KB, 382x417px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 382x417px

>>82534339
>millenians haven't even heard of Blade Runner
you're joking right? millennials love to namedrop this piece of pleb trash when they want you to believe they're "film buffs"

>>82534550
why? Is it not enough or too much?

>>82534676
It's a lot, considering the original movie was panned and a bomb at the box office, if I recall crrectly

>>82530539
t. disney cuck

>>82530267
Me.

Fuck the people who keep making PG-13 action films.

>>82530493
>Oscars
Oh, you mean those cheap sculptures spray-painted in a seemingly gold color that are as fake as the boring movies designed for them which are watched by nobody on this planet except a niche of pretentious hipsters?

Also both WB and Disney are cucks.

>>82530267
Everyone who loves movie making as an art. Probably a bad idea financially but I can respect that choice

>>82534062
>Every time someone mocks Warner Bros. or any other studio* for taking artistic risks*
I fixed this for ya buddy, now keep on shilling those epic raccoons

File: 1493065728872.jpg (105KB, 786x810px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 786x810px

>>82534550
TIS A BIT HIGH

BUT THERE ARE SO FEW BIG NAME >LE 80S NOSTALGIA PLAYS LEFT TO REMAKE, SO AN ARGUMENT CAN BE MADE FOR THE VALUATION, ITS A GAMBLE AS MOST THINGS IN HOLLYWOOD

GITS PERFORMANCE SHOULD SPOOK THEM A BIT, 170M WORLDWIDE ON 110M BUDGET EXMARKETING

THERES MONEY IN TV LICENSING AND HOME RELEASE SO GITS WILL PROBABLY BREAK EVEN IN THE END, BR2 NEEDS TO DO LIKE 400M WORLDWIDE WHICH IT MIGHT

>>82534676

The original movie isn't exactly popular enough to justify a budget of that size. It is extremely excessive all things considered, people interested in this movie aren't interested in big action set pieces.

>>82534952
Kong made $500m and looked worse than this, if they don't go crazy on marketing they very well break even and then make some cash on video sales and sindication.

File: guardians of the galaxy vs suicide squad.jpg (847KB, 1000x4188px) Image search: [Google]

847KB, 1000x4188px

>>82530573

>>82534945
Blade Runner 2049 is the only real artistic risk Warner Bros. have made recently. Fuck off, shill. Go back to spamming "GAL GADOT IS SO HOT! WONDER WOMAN WILL BE CAPEKINO!" threads.

>>82534486
Marketing budget IS production budget, no?

>>82530267
There's no way this movie has a 200 million dollar budget.

>>82534282
>Is this good?
It's alright. Definitely worth a read, but it won't blow you away.

>>82535113
yup,i think the same,OP is a fuckin retard for spreading misinformation,a twitter pic is not a reliable source, not even close(anyone can write whatever shit he want on fuckin twitter)..Actual budget will be around 90 million $..

File: tbts.jpg (13KB, 300x405px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 300x405px

>>82534967
Well, that would mean this movie will flop and there will be no future Blade Runner movies. Thats a good thing, they could atlast look at other novels by Philip Dick and make a movie out of them.

>>82535088
No. The production budget is what's used to produce the film, the marketing budget is what's used to market it. They'll probably spend another $150m just to advertise the movie.

File: 1494119350921.gif (36KB, 330x257px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 330x257px

>>82535216
YOU CAN NEVER KNOW THE REAL FIGURE WITH ALL THE BACKDEALS AND MONEY LAUNDERING THEY DO, ITS A UNIQUE WEB OF SHIT FOR EACH PRODUCTION

ITS LIKE STARTING A WHOLE COMPANY FOR ONE PRODUCT THEN WINDING IT DOWN AT THE END TO SIT DORMANT AND COLLECT RESIDUALS AND/OR LAWSUITS

BUT IF THEYR PUBLICLY SAYING 200M BUDGET THATS HOW THEYRE WILLING TO LET ITS PERFORMANCE BE JUDGED

>>82530267
So I guess you would rather it have a $10M budget and directed by some art house faggot bc m-muh grimdark sci-fi.

File: 1459953801256.jpg (22KB, 526x526px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 526x526px

>the studio gives Villenueve a massive budget and artistic control
>he makes kino
>it fails to turn a profit because of its massive budget but it gets critical acclaim
>the critical acclaim boosts Villenueve's career and the financial disappointment stops the studio from greenlighting another Blade Runner sequel
This is perfect. Why are you people bitching?

>>82535437
But I have seen zero marketing for this movie outside of /tv/

>>82536178
It's not being released until October.

>>82535904
I'm not really interested in this movie as much as in the rumored Dune movie he'll make next. I want him to be given a huge budget and complete control over that.