The biggest challenge for Blade Runner 2049 is that the brand hardly means anything to those under 40. There was an oversight by the producers on the Blade Runner brand’s low wattage among the masses despite its eternal legacy praise by critics. You don’t build a movie that costs in excess of $155M net for just one quadrant –older males (guys over 25 rep 53% per PostTrak)– and mount a campaign that’s shrouded in secrecy, thus sidelining a brand new potential generation of fans. We heard for some time that there was concern among those close to the film that the younger crowd wouldn’t show up. Indeed, that’s what we’re seeing.
What a fascinating business. A $35 million-budgeted horror movie in its fifth frame will gross close to nine times its production cost with a running domestic B.O. total of $304.5M.
At the same time, a $155M-plus attempt to reboot a cult sci-fi franchise may not even make it to $100M by the end of its domestic theatrical cycle.
We are, of course, comparing New Line/Warner Bros.’ It and Alcon Entertainment/Sony’s Blade Runner 2049, and the latter is now looking at a three-day weekend of $31.5M as of Sunday AM, down from the $32.6M the industry spotted on Saturday morning.
That’s an awful start for this brilliantly crafted cinematic opus directed by Denis Villeneuve and executive produced by Ridley Scott. In fact, Blade Runner 2049‘s projected weekend isn’t that far from Scott’s summer misfire, Alien: Covenant ($36.1M). Forecasts for Blade Runner 2049 having been falling since Friday at noon from $45M to $36M late last night to now this.
Alcon Entertainment and Sony’s flying car noir sequel Blade Runner 2049 via Warner Bros looks to come in around $36.7 million over the four-day Columbus Day holiday per industry estimates, still not successful enough for this movie which carries a total global spend of $300M-plus between its budget and P&A.
Back in the day, the original 1982 Blade Runner film didn’t connect with the masses, ultimately making closing to $28M. So it’s logical from a business perspective why there wasn’t a sequel for 35 years –unlike Ridley Scott’s 1979 Alien ($78.9M), which saw a sequel seven years later with Aliens making $85.1M, kicking off a franchise of eight movies. The original Blade Runner was also panned when it was first released; the movie only accumulated prestige over time.
Because Scott went $5M over budget on the original movie (final production cost was $28M), the pic’s rights reverted to Jerry Perenchio and Bud Yorkin, the producers who shelled out the extra cash. Perenchio reportedly was precious about the original movie and wouldn’t allow sequels, but the Yorkins shelled out a reported $5M in the early aughts to take control of the property. In the original deal, Warner Bros had dibs on distributing the pic’s sequels, and that’s when the Yorkins began working with Alcon, who have a deal on the Burbank lot. Alcon took hold of the sequel rights six years and began pushing forward with the sequel.
Blade Runner 2049 marks the third time Alcon has tried to graduate to bigger tentpole films and fell flat, following a 2015 remake of Point Break and Johnny Depp’s 2014 movie Transcendence, both $100M-plus movies before P&A. Alcon is on the hook for their half of the Blade Runner 2049 production cost and global P&A; they’ll be stung the most from this ambitious film. Sony chipped in $90M before rebates and tax credits. Many finance sources tell Deadline that Blade Runner 2049 is not expected to profit after all ancillaries are counted.
The tanking of this Denis Villeneuve-directed, Ridley Scott executive produced sci-fi epic really put a damper in the marketplace: We’re still 4.7% behind the same January 1-October 8 period a year ago with $8.3 billion and will depend on Warner Bros’ Justice League and three Disney movies — Marvel’s Thor: Ragnarok, Pixar’s Coco and Lucasfilm’s The Last Jedi — in terms of putting us over last year’s $11.4 billion record.
This is truly a very depressing result for Blade Runner 2049: Here was a passionate attempt to revive a cult classic, be completely faithful to its original property, from its mind-blowing production design to its sophisticated plot, and now, kerplunk. Similar to the way that time was on the side of the original Blade Runner — it’s a groundbreaking piece of filmmaking that has far surpassed its initial commercial prospects (it bombed back in 1982, making close to $28M stateside) — perhaps history will also be kind to Blade Runner 2049. The jaw-dropping sequel is truly an awards season film, and should Warner Bros. rally behind Blade Runner 2049, perhaps more people will find it. On the PR side, Blade Runner 2049 is Villeneuve’s best opening as a director, besting Arrival‘s $24M, and it’s also Ryan Gosling’s, his previous being Crazy, Stupid, Love with $19.1M.

Rumor has it the main reason for Blade Runner 2049’s failure is because they got the wrong actor, they should have recruited this woman instead …