It’s no surprise by now that “Blade Runner 2049” didn’t exactly meet financial expectations. It’s opening weekend was so soft, it actually caused theater chain stocks to tumble. Many questions were asked in hindsight about the show and don’t tell marketing approach, and the film’s lengthy running time, and not even China could salvage the bottom line for the sequel. Now, it’s becoming quite clear what kind of mark “Blade Runner 2049” is going to leave on the ledgers.
THR reports that production company Alcon Entertainment and the various investors who threw their money at the movie, are bracing themselves to lose as much as $80 million. The film, which cost $155 million before marketing, was said to need $400 million worldwide to break even. At the moment, it’s just a bit over $240 million. That’s quite a way off the goal line, but at the very least, Sony will get back the $110 million they threw in because how their deal works with Alcon.
It’s disappointing news for Denis Villeneuve, who certainly put a lot of craft and care into his followup to Ridley Scott‘s classic movie. But it’s also a loss for fans of contemplative sci-fi, at least the studio level, because you can bet no one is going to spend that kind of money on a cerebral project like this again, anytime soon.
![Pinterest](https://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=https://dev.theplaylist.net/blade-runner-2049-lose-80-million-20171108/&media=https://cdn.theplaylist.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/14230802/BladeRunner2049.jpg&description=It's becoming quite clear what kind of mark "Blade Runner 2049" is going to leave on the ledgers once it leaves the multiplex.){kind=link}
There was no need to make the movie as long as it was. It also suffered from this post-modern trend of making pretty images and letting the audience figure out the rest.
Yeah. how dare a filmmaker ask the viewer to actually use their brain.
It’s not about using your brain, it’s about the artist having a voice and actually trying to convey something as opposed to being too timid. Most of the film was just sumptuous imagery, a slick service with little else.
I thought it was thematically rich and emotionally moving. Takes all kinds.
A timid movie, that’s what you saw?
That’s exactly why this film was so bad, the director *DIDN’T* ask anybody to use their brain (it Villeneuve, so nobody really should have expected better, the only thing he’s good at is making stupid people think they are clever), not the audience, certainly not the writers, and as far as I can see anybody else involved with the film.
I’ve grown to dislike needlessly long films over the years, but I wish this film was longer.
It’s sad, all audiences want today are more and more loud superhero movies, pretty much the only thing today that is a guaranteed box office success. 2049 has been the best movie of the year by far, but because it was too niche in the theaters, and a genre film, the awards will ignore it as they tend to do.
Worth the 35 year wait, let’s see what kind of punches Gosling can throw at 70
It’s so sad this didn’t do better. So…more brainless action flicks for the ‘short attention span’ generation, great! Not.
It’s more of a shame it wasn’t a better movie in the first place, the big problem with the film is it *WAS* brainless!
The film was actually really disappointing. As a film it was OK, but as a sequel to Blade Runner, it was terrible. There were some nice in-jokes and references, but overall low-brow junk masquerading as high-brow gold (it was directed by Villeneuve, so I really shouldn’t have expected better, the only thing he’s good at is making stupid people think they are clever). Everything seemed forced and unnatural. The plot was trite and cliched, and everything was very predictable. Totally a wasted opportunity ;^<