The Blade Runner 2049 movie is a very expensive movie flop
@Deepizzaguy (94682)
Lake Charles, Louisiana
November 8, 2017 6:43pm CST
When the sequel of the science fiction movie "Blade Runner" came out in 1982, it was such a huge hit movie that did not have a sequel made until 35 years later.
The sequel to "Blade Runner 2049" which was released in theaters in 2017, the movie which a running time of 164 minutes was a box office flop.
Despite the sequel having actors Harrison Ford and Ryan Gosling in lead roles, the Sony motion picture could lose up to $80 million dollars when the movie has finished its run in theaters worldwide.
What makes me laugh is the studios waited 35 years to make a sequel to a hit movie. What really stings is that the sequel to "Blade Runner" received a high score of 88 from the Rotten Tomatoes site. .
6 people like this
6 responses
@ilocosboy (45157)
• Philippines
9 Nov 17
Lesson learned, don't wait 35 years to do a sequel
3 people like this
@Deepizzaguy (94682)
• Lake Charles, Louisiana
9 Nov 17
That is true since most sequels come out in about two to three years.
@JohnRoberts (109857)
• Los Angeles, California
9 Nov 17
So it's officially a flop? After decades of anticipation.
3 people like this
@Deepizzaguy (94682)
• Lake Charles, Louisiana
9 Nov 17
I know what you mean. If I had to wait 35 years for a sequel of Wordgirl: The Rise Of Miss Power I would be in a grave/
1 person likes this
@youless (112123)
• Guangzhou, China
9 Nov 17
I watched Blade Runner in 1982 but I haven't watched the sequel yet. I heard this new version is also successful? Perhaps many Blade Runner fans want to watch it and therefore the tickets can sell well. After all, Blade Runner is one of the classical science fiction movies.
1 person likes this
@Deepizzaguy (94682)
• Lake Charles, Louisiana
9 Nov 17
That is true since the media likes to publish negative stories.
1 person likes this
my friends watched it
@Deepizzaguy (94682)
• Lake Charles, Louisiana
10 Nov 17
@lady1993 I know what you mean most movies go around two hours or two and one half hours.
1 person likes this
@Deepizzaguy (94682)
• Lake Charles, Louisiana
9 Nov 17
It was a good movie but the studio is second guessed because the movie went over 2.5 hours in length.
1 person likes this
@FourWalls (62254)
• United States
9 Nov 17
WHY THEY WAITED 35 YEARS: "Hey, here's a movie we haven't done a remake of yet!"
2 people like this
@Deepizzaguy (94682)
• Lake Charles, Louisiana
10 Nov 17
That is a good question since most sequels are about two to three years apart.
1 person likes this
@Deepizzaguy (94682)
• Lake Charles, Louisiana
9 Nov 17
35 years later for a sequel of a hit movie?
1 person likes this
