Nope.
Says you.
I'm willing to bet that you haven't even seen the movie, whereas I have and would therefore be in a better position to comment on its potential as a money-maker for the Disney-owned FOX.
Alita: Battle Angel (July 2018)
- Thread starter Burning Hearts of Qo'nos
- Start date
Nope.
Says you.
I'm willing to bet that you haven't even seen the movie, whereas I have and would therefore be in a better position to comment on its potential as a money-maker for the Disney-owned FOX.
It's already passed the "break even" point, which was $350 million, so it's made a $52 million profit as of yesterday; home video sales will add more to that total as well.
Really? Do some research instead of attacking me like a child.
Edit: James Cameron apparently owns the rights to the Alita IP rather than Disney/FOX, and has the influence, clout, and resources to push for a sequel if he wants to.
Last edited:
Too bad he couldn't use any of that to make a better initial movie.
Slang is odd. Literally, a dud is an unexploded bomb -- something that was meant to be a bomb but failed to be. And yet we consider a "bomb" to be a worse failure than a "dud."
For that matter, a blockbuster is literally a bomb large enough to destroy a city block, so that's a kind of bomb that we use to describe a massive success. "Dynamite" is an adjective for something highly successful, and a great time is a "blast."
So not only do we use a disturbing number of bomb-related metaphors to describe the success or failure of works of entertainment, but we don't even use them consistently. (Even before you contemplate the paradoxical discrepancy between "a bomb" and "da bomb.")
Okay, let's look at the situation as it relates to the fans, and to us, it's not really that important how much the movie actually makes (we're not getting that money, after all). For us, the important thing is, how good are the chances of the movie getting a sequel.
Now, the movie obviously wasn't successful enough for Fox (or Disney now, same difference) to comfortably greenlight a sequel. It was, however, not a money-loser. It now has a broader brand-awareness in mass audience, the buzz around the movie from those who saw it was generally good, so chances that a sequel would do better are pretty good. And that's the important thing, after all, making a sequel is not so much depending on the first installment making money as the prospects of the sequel of making money. That's why we got a second Star Trek movie, after all.
Add to that that Robert Rodriguez can work with smaller budgets, so a smaller budgeted sequel would not necessarily affect quality. And ultimately, James Cameron holds the rights, and he's a massive fan of the project. Often enough whether a movie gets made or not depends on a powerful Hollywood person championing it.
So, is it safe to say there will be a sequel? No, certainly not. But chances are not bad, either.
Now, the movie obviously wasn't successful enough for Fox (or Disney now, same difference) to comfortably greenlight a sequel. It was, however, not a money-loser. It now has a broader brand-awareness in mass audience, the buzz around the movie from those who saw it was generally good, so chances that a sequel would do better are pretty good. And that's the important thing, after all, making a sequel is not so much depending on the first installment making money as the prospects of the sequel of making money. That's why we got a second Star Trek movie, after all.
Add to that that Robert Rodriguez can work with smaller budgets, so a smaller budgeted sequel would not necessarily affect quality. And ultimately, James Cameron holds the rights, and he's a massive fan of the project. Often enough whether a movie gets made or not depends on a powerful Hollywood person championing it.
So, is it safe to say there will be a sequel? No, certainly not. But chances are not bad, either.
Star Trek: The Motion Picture made tons of money. Corrected for inflation, it was the most financially successful Trek movie prior to 2009 (although that's partly because movies stayed in theaters far, far longer in the 1970s so it had a really long run). It's just that it was extremely expensive to make, at least on paper, because Paramount lumped in the expense of the several previous abortive movie and TV revival attempts in with TMP's reported budget, inflating it to the point that it actually made the Guinness Book of World Records as the most expensive movie ever made. So that high overhead cancelled out a lot of the profits. That, rather than box-office failure, is the reason that the subsequent movies were made on such a slimmed-down budget.
Same goes for cool and bad. Depending on the context they mean different things.Slang is odd. Literally, a dud is an unexploded bomb -- something that was meant to be a bomb but failed to be. And yet we consider a "bomb" to be a worse failure than a "dud."
For that matter, a blockbuster is literally a bomb large enough to destroy a city block, so that's a kind of bomb that we use to describe a massive success. "Dynamite" is an adjective for something highly successful, and a great time is a "blast."
So not only do we use a disturbing number of bomb-related metaphors to describe the success or failure of works of entertainment, but we don't even use them consistently. (Even before you contemplate the paradoxical discrepancy between "a bomb" and "da bomb.")
Alita probably won't get a sequel, which is too bad. But it doesn't mean it won't get remade in ten or twenty years time when the technology is better able to visualize it (and hopefully they don't try shoe-horning in even more redundant plots).
Maybe I should have put up a disclaimer saying that by "making money", I was referring to profits and not overall box office. Because, if the latter were the case, a movie would have to sell only one ticket to "make money".
I am deeply puzzled by how "s**t" means something bad but "the s**t" means something good. Also rather disgusted.
$402 million worldwide isn't a massive flop for a $170 Million dollar budget film:
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=alita.htm
- that would be Disney's John Carter (of Mars) with a $250 million budget and a worldwide take of 284 million.
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=johncarterofmars.htm
The above said, while Alita will likely break even in its theatrical release and make some profit as it goes to VOD, pay cable (HBO, etc.) and Blu-Ray; I don't see Disney greenlighting a sequel unless Cameron's Avatar sequels do gangbusters at the box office, and Disney green lights an Alita sequel as a "Thank you" to Mr. Cameron
Which is a shame, because it was a really good movie, aside from a weak beginning and a weaker title.
Presumably, if Cameron does own the full film rights, he's not necessarily dependent on Fox/Disney to fund a sequel, he could shop the project around at other studios, as well.
Interesting, two of Disney's biggest flops are John Carter of Mars and Mars Needs Moms...
As I noted earlier, the '"break even" point for the film is $350 million, so it's already passed that.
My original comments were based on the belief that Disney/FOX owned the rights directly, but I still think they ought to at least talk with Cameron about a sequel because of the film's positive audience reaction, particularly overseas.
Source?
Alita on RT had 60% which is fresh, but actually RIGHT on the line. Box office did ok outside the US, but awful domestically. IMDB is 7.6 which is good, but not great. None of this screams "sequel". I guess a low budget sequel could get greenlit, but does anyone want that?
Im looking forward to getting this on 3D blu ray so I can watch it at home. Strange enough, my pre order has no release date right now. I've heard a rumour that its due to some kind of pending lawsuit against the film related to a trademark lawsuit? I'm suprised this would hold up the home video release though.
Last edited:
Trademark lawsuit? There's another "Alita" out there?