User Information

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Alien: Covenant Box Office Performance  (Read 172262 times)




bb-15
Nov 04, 2017, 12:21:21 AM
Reply #1638 on: Nov 04, 2017, 12:21:21 AM
Q
Yeah.

Covenant did better than Blade Runner 2049. ;D

Covenant was expected to do better than Blade Runner 2049. It's the sixth film in an iconic, well established and profitable franchise.

* It was uncertain how "Covenant" was going to do with evidence pointing for both success and lack of it.

* Prior to "Prometheus"; the last Alien movie was "Resurrection". (I'm not counting the AVP movies.)
That had a production budget of $75 million and box office of $161,376,068 or box office that is 2.15 times its production budget.
- The performance of "Resurrection" while decent (probably making a little money after several years), it did not do that well enough to get a direct sequel.    
- As a result Fox waited 15 years before releasing the soft reboot/prequel, "Prometheus".
* "Prometheus" did well in terms of box office (3x production budget) but it showed a deep split among the audience, especially with the fans of the franchise.
It was certainly possible that "Covenant" would only do OK; a little better than "Resurrection" and that's what happened.

2049 is the sequel nobody asked for to a 35 year old flop.

Some people may not have asked for a "Blade Runner" sequel but studios decide if films are made and not because of the opinions of random movie goers.
- And once Fox decided to do "BR 2049" many people (such as on IMDb forums, including fans of Denis Villeneuve) were very much looking forward to seeing it.
(PS. I got the studio(s) wrong. The "BR 2049" production companies were: Warner Bros. · Columbia Pictures · Alcon Entertainment.)
- And "Blade Runner 2049" was certainly anticipated by many film journalists / bloggers. Here's a bit of that.

Quote
It is unmistakably a Denis Villeneuve film, inviting us to tumble, tense with anticipation, into his doomy clutches.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/16/blade-runner-2049-the-mysteries-deepen

Quote
‘Blade Runner 2049’ Tests Our Anticipation Levels With A Second Trailer
http://uproxx.com/hitfix/blade-runner-2049-trailer-2/

Quote
After months of anticipation and years in the making, the first reactions to Denis Villeneuve’s Blade Runner 2049 are here.
https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-first-reactions-to-blade-runner-2049-are-incredibly-1818807529

Quote
"Blade Runner 2049" topped the box office over the weekend, but after months of buzz and anticipation, the sci-fi sequel...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/blade-runner-2049-tops-box-office-but-falls-short-of-expectations/ 

If Covenant would've done worse than Blade Runner 2049, it would've been embarrassing.

My view is that;
- It was obvious that the Fox studio anticipated that "BR 2049" would be a bigger box office draw than "Covenant".
Why? Because Fox approved $150 million for the production of "BR 2049" and only $97 million for the production of "Covenant'.
- And why would Fox risk $53 million more on "BR 2049" compared with "Covenant"?
Because Fox expected that "BR 2049" would make much more money than "Covenant".
(PS. Again, I got the studio(s) wrong. The "BR 2049" production companies were: Warner Bros. · Columbia Pictures · Alcon Entertainment.)

;)

« Last Edit: Nov 04, 2017, 05:05:32 PM by bb-15 »

SM
Nov 04, 2017, 12:29:26 AM
Reply #1639 on: Nov 04, 2017, 12:29:26 AM
Q
Fox spent $150m on Blade Runner?


bb-15
Nov 04, 2017, 12:37:00 AM
Reply #1640 on: Nov 04, 2017, 12:37:00 AM
Q
Fox spent $150m on Blade Runner?

Yes SM;
Though, just to be clear this is not about 1982 "Blade Runner", I wrote; "Fox approved $150 million for the production of "BR 2049"
(PS. I got the studio(s) wrong. The "BR 2049" production companies were: Warner Bros. · Columbia Pictures · Alcon Entertainment.)

Here are the numbers from Box Office Mojo for "Blade Runner 2049".

Quote
Production Budget: $150 million

Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic:    $83,221,130      37.0%
+ Foreign:    $141,595,153      63.0%
= Worldwide:    $224,816,283
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=bladerunnersequel.htm

It seemed that Fox was hoping that "BR 2049" would make about $450 million (3x production budget).

;)   

« Last Edit: Nov 04, 2017, 05:06:15 PM by bb-15 »

SM
Nov 04, 2017, 01:22:56 AM
Reply #1641 on: Nov 04, 2017, 01:22:56 AM
Q
Fox spent $150m on Blade Runner 2049?

Not WB and Sony?





Mister Skeezler
Nov 04, 2017, 02:04:09 PM
Reply #1645 on: Nov 04, 2017, 02:04:09 PM
Q
I like many of the parts of the whole David story arc, but I just don't think I want to be left with yet another story that focuses solely on AI. It's starting to feel tired.



adambeyoncelowe
Nov 04, 2017, 03:41:04 PM
Reply #1647 on: Nov 04, 2017, 03:41:04 PM
Q
Probably. I loved Alien, Legend and Blade Runner. Wasn't a fan of Gladiator. Robin Hood was awful. Kingdom of Heaven was even worse. The Martian was okay, but basically Castaway in Space, so it's a very particular kind of film you'll either love or hate. I didn't like Castaway, so...

Maybe he's had his day. It's not just him. I wasn't a fan of Avatar, which also felt self-indulgent and far less original/creative than its director thought it was (Fern Gully in Space, anyone?). I also wasn't keen on Spielberg's recent stuff. I think the Hollywood machine is being held back by this tenacious crop of old men who aren't letting in new talent (take Alien 5, for instance).

To be fair, it's possibly the same in the business world in general (my mother's generation seems to be hogging all the top jobs with the best pay, and few of them want to budge). Originally, the Alien movies were a springboard for new talent. What are the chances of a first time director getting his or her hands on a new Alien movie now? Practically zero.

« Last Edit: Nov 04, 2017, 05:09:34 PM by adambeyoncelowe »

Biomechanoid
Nov 04, 2017, 04:14:45 PM
Reply #1648 on: Nov 04, 2017, 04:14:45 PM
Q
I agree, I too think he should retire from directing, but I think the skills are still there for him to continue as producer.


bb-15
Nov 04, 2017, 05:00:49 PM
Reply #1649 on: Nov 04, 2017, 05:00:49 PM
Q
Fox spent $150m on Blade Runner 2049?

Not WB and Sony?

Oops! Sorry my mistake;

The "BR 2049" production companies were: Warner Bros. · Columbia Pictures · Alcon Entertainment.

I'll add a couple of PSs to my above posts!

------------------------

Maybe he's had his day. It's not just him. I wasn't a fan of Avatar, which also felt self-indulgent and far less original/creative than its director thought it was (Fern Gully in Space, anyone?). I also wasn't keen on Spielberg's recent stuff. I think the Hollywood machine is being held back by this tenacious crop of old men who aren't letting new talent (take Alien 5, for instance).
Originally, the Alien movies were a springboard for new talent. What are the chances of a first time director getting his or her hands on a new Alien movie now? Practically zero.

The problem for Hollywood and big budget serious science fiction films is that not very many directors can do it and make a profit.
That is why Hollywood is looking for the few directors who have a proven track record with serious science fiction movies.
There is huge pressure because studios don't like to lose money.
As a result, many directors (some big names) either stay away from those projects and often why new directors aren't given the job.
- Take David Fincher. "Alien 3" was a horrible experience for him and since its release he wants nothing to do with the franchise or the genre. With newer directors the studio will often interfere and some directors don't want to deal with that.
- Serious science fiction movies are expensive making it hard to make a profit compared with a low budget indie film.
So, serious science fiction movies often flop.
- This is why imo Tarantino hasn't done serious science fiction.

Back to "BR 2049", it looks like it will be a flop.
- Other famous serious SF movie flops?
"Sunshine", "Children of Men", "Star Trek: Nemesis", "Cloud Atlas", "Life" and so on.
   
Or serious science fiction which had so so box office performance.
"Edge of Tomorrow" with box office at only 2x its production budget.
Same level of performance with "Chappie".

* Cameron, Spielberg, Nolan, Abrams and Scott all have had serious science fiction films that made money.
It makes sense that when the studios are considering funding a serious science fiction movie that those directors with a proven track record would be considered. 

----------------------

Looks like Ridley may soon be leaving the franchise behind again (thankfully): https://movieweb.com/alien-franchise-over-ridley-scott/

Imo, that's not what Ridley said. If he does a sequel to "Covenant", it would be in the Alien franchise.
- It just would not have the Xenomorph (or very little of it).
Why? The fanbase is split. One group of fans did not want the Xenomorph back (see Jay Bauman, in the Red Letter Media review).
Instead this part of the fanbase wanted another film more like "Prometheus" (with Engineers and very little about Xenomorphs).
- I know that a lot of fans hate "Prometheus" (I've argued with a lot of them over the years, LOL) but again, the fanbase is split.

Anyway, we'll see what the studio decides.

;)

« Last Edit: Nov 04, 2017, 06:58:37 PM by bb-15 »

 

Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS Feed