Aliens vs Predator: Requiem- R-rated & gory

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 02 Feb 2006, 08:13

Yes, Fox have greenlit a sequel to Alien vs. Predator, even though it was a shitfest and box office failure.

Bloody-disgusting wrote:At the premiere for Big Mommas House 2, Tom Rothman, Head of Fox spoke about X Men 3, but what is also of note is his comments below on the AVP 2 film. According to SKNR.Net who first reported reported months ago that a film was coming and that it would have a contemporary setting according to Rothman based on the planned script, well thanks to The Movie Reporter and their exclusive interview, the news below seems to confirm this.

Q: AvP 2 any development there?

TR: Yeah, uh, Hutch would know actually better but I think they just got the script, they just got the script in...we are making that movie, it's gonna be kick ass (smiles).

Q: How soon?

TR: We're hoping for August of 2007 release. That's what we hope.

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 02 Feb 2006, 10:50

wouldn't call AVP a box office failure looking at those figures. 105 million to produce,make prints & advertise and it's total gross was over 200 million

that's a healthy profit and then there's the dvd profits which i assume aren't included in those figures.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 02 Feb 2006, 10:53

Yeah but doesnt a movie have to make 2 or 2.5 times its budget back to be a "success"?

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 02 Feb 2006, 11:26

grim_tales wrote:Yeah but doesnt a movie have to make 2 or 2.5 times its budget back to be a "success"?

grim ask yourself this question it's a no-brainer really- fox makes averagely budgeted franchise movie- franchise movie performs to good but not spectacular box-office numbers-franchise movie gets released on dvd 5 months later and makes shitloads of cash for studio- so the question is doesn't it become clear to you that AVP despite being a very average movie was a success

fox aren't in the business of greenlighting sequels to movies that lost them money

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 02 Feb 2006, 11:45

I meant it has to make that money back in box office, not counting DVD sales - its why you can say KONG wasn't as big a hit as it could have been for example.
For the record I can't find AvP worldwide figures on IMDB, and where did you get $105m from? Its' estimated budget was $45m

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 02 Feb 2006, 12:39

grim_tales wrote:I meant it has to make that money back in box office, not counting DVD sales - its why you can say KONG wasn't as big a hit as it could have been for example.
For the record I can't find AvP worldwide figures on IMDB, and where did you get $105m from? Its' estimated budget was $45m

did you not click on eva's link in the first post

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 02 Feb 2006, 12:58

Fantastic news. Loved the original and I can only hope that PWSA returns to direct the sequel.

brooce-leroy · Post by **brooce-leroy** » 02 Feb 2006, 14:36

I liked the original too. As long as you ignore the legacy of the Alien and Predator movies, then there is not much wrong with it.

slasher13 · Post by **slasher13** » 02 Feb 2006, 14:55

I'm a big Alien and Predator fan, and i liked the homage the first AVP put in. One of them was where Lance Henriksen play with the pen in the beginning of the movie, like Bishop does in Aliens with a knife

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 02 Feb 2006, 15:07

saltysam wrote:
grim_tales wrote:I meant it has to make that money back in box office, not counting DVD sales - its why you can say KONG wasn't as big a hit as it could have been for example.
For the record I can't find AvP worldwide figures on IMDB, and where did you get $105m from? Its' estimated budget was $45m
did you not click on eva's link in the first post

Oh sorry, just seen it now - total budget: $105m
Worldwide Gross: $102m

If thats a success than I'm a Dutchman

Sounds a like a failure to me.
Actually I stand corrected about Kong - it has already cracked $500m worldwide which isn't bad.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 02 Feb 2006, 16:57

A V P made a total fortune, dont beleve a word certain sites say, they make shit up anyway. It did emense dvd sales alone.

I cannot wait for a part 2, if only to see them get it a bit more right this time and not change too many rules!

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 02 Feb 2006, 16:59

Er, that site is based on box office reciepts Romero. DVD doesn't come in into it.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 02 Feb 2006, 17:58

It does as it made more on dvd than in cinema, dvd counts for more than cinema in todays market.

It made nearly $200 million worldwide in cinemas, only a blind man thinks that a flop. Than add in the dvds, toys, and stuff and it made probibly near half a billion! not a flop at all.

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 02 Feb 2006, 22:59

grim_tales wrote:
saltysam wrote:
grim_tales wrote:I meant it has to make that money back in box office, not counting DVD sales - its why you can say KONG wasn't as big a hit as it could have been for example.
For the record I can't find AvP worldwide figures on IMDB, and where did you get $105m from? Its' estimated budget was $45m
did you not click on eva's link in the first post
Oh sorry, just seen it now - total budget: $105m
Worldwide Gross: $102m

If thats a success than I'm a Dutchman Sounds a like a failure to me.
Actually I stand corrected about Kong - it has already cracked $500m worldwide which isn't bad.

err no grim-worlwide gross was 102 million,the usa gross is separate to that figure and clocked in at 80 million making a total of just over 200 million. so you clearly are a dutchman

and kong has disappointing box office,no doubt about it. bloody narnia gave it a thrashing .

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 03 Feb 2006, 11:21

OK, I thought "worldwide gross" would include the USA AND non USA box offices, no?

Obviously not.
I agree about Kong though, it certainly hasnt failed but slightly embarrassing for Universal.

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 03 Feb 2006, 12:28

maybe the worlld's not ready for giant monster remakes. 1998's godzilla underperformed at the box office as well.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 03 Feb 2006, 13:05

True, it must be said lots of people already know Kong's story (more so than LOTR I would guess), so people think "why do you need 3 hours to tell a story which the 1933 version told in 100 minutes?" I loved the movie but looking back even I now think the first hour of Kong could have been tightened.

Does anyone know of a site showing how much money a film makes on DVD?
Romero I just meant that DVD sales arent included in say, the figures on the IMDB or the linked one as the numbers just relate to money made in cinema reciepts - hence my "DVD doesn't come into it" line

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 25 Aug 2007, 10:57

Trailer:- http://au.media.movies.ign.com/media/74 ... ids_1.html

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 26 Aug 2007, 13:51

Youtube'd
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01nbwBUfZTY&

Wow, R-rated and really gory by the looks of it.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 26 Aug 2007, 14:00

Youtube sucks

Go here for the HD version

http://www.davestrailerpage.co.uk/

IronMonkey · Post by **IronMonkey** » 26 Aug 2007, 14:36

Now thats more like it! That looks far better than the first Aliens v Predator film. Plus Reiko Aylesworth is in it!

slasher13 · Post by **slasher13** » 03 Sep 2007, 16:21

IronMonkey wrote:Now thats more like it! That looks far better than the first Aliens v Predator film. Plus Reiko Aylesworth is in it!

......And that isn't because you are a fan of 24 either

But yeah the teaser trailer looks wicked, I actually liked the original, but felt it would have been nice, if they could use the original dark horse graphic novel, as that would have made a good movie. (They used parts of the graphic novel, but wanted the whole story)

IronMonkey · Post by **IronMonkey** » 03 Sep 2007, 16:43

slasher13 wrote:......And that isn't because you are a fan of 24 either

I'm sorry, but what DO you mean?!

Of course its because I'm a fan of 24!

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 03 Sep 2007, 16:54

*Checks IMDB*, she was Michelle on 24 right?

slasher13 · Post by **slasher13** » 03 Sep 2007, 17:21

IronMonkey wrote:
slasher13 wrote:......And that isn't because you are a fan of 24 either
I'm sorry, but what DO you mean?! Of course its because I'm a fan of 24!

Whoops,

*Checks IMDB*, she was Michelle on 24 right?

Ahh bless Grim