Ben Wheatley To Direct TOMB RAIDER Sequel Starring Alicia Vikander

Yes. All tight and muscular.

Attached: 1565477394241.jpg (1920x1080, 910K)

Yes.

What's the point of TR movies? The game worked because you could sink in to explore ruins, try various combinations of puzzle and logic. Sometimes it took hours to figure something out. More complicated level could take a week without looking up for solution. The movie is just passive watching with zero interaction.
I remember one of games was set in Egypt. I liked how many traps were based on mythology and it was the key to solve them. I literally had to take a look into books about that. Now that's immersion.

Laura cums multiple times in the movie when kicked in the gut

Not every film deserves a sequel

The weak should fear the strong

What has he done? Sell it to me Anons.

How was Happy New Year, Colin Burstead? It's his only work I haven't seen. Shit, I even have the Freakshift script on me somewhere. Hope that gets made one day.

I just want to say the scene where her dad is healing her and she's in pain sold the movie for me.
It was a shit video game movie until that point.

Free Fire is my favorite of his. The movie is basically one prolonged gunfight/standoff, and the characters are great. High-Rise deserves a mention too.

Start with Kill List. Best cult film in ages. Hereditary owes it's lifeblood to it.
Down Terrace is good low budge crime.
A Field in England is whacko magician stuff.
High Rise is sci-fi done right.
Free Fire is a fun crime flick.

>Sequel
How long has the first one been out?

High rise > free fire

Last year.

...ben Wheatley
that's odd.

The director might make this good.

Attached: A.Field.In.England.2013 still life.webm (1280x544, 2.25M)

WHAT THE FUCK?!?
Who the fuck was so coked out that they okayed a sequel to a movie that flopped and NO ONE liked.

Attached: fight_club_remake.jpg (1600x900, 247K)

Female heroine
that is all it takes for a green light

Flop?

it didn't flop, it made it money back in the big screen, and now will make steady money on TV/streaming deals. They want to go another time to see if they can make a hit since they figure it was 90% right for a adventure film.

I demand my lesbian subtext.

boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=dcfilm0318.htm
>Domestic Total Gross: $58,250,803
>Production Budget: $94 million + Marketing and other expenses = 282 million
>I-It didn't flop!
OH NO NO NO NO NO

Where are you getting that they spent almost 200 million on marketing?

They made about 95 million on the screens including international, TV rights/streaming were leased for 10 years for 120 million, and the marking buy was closer to 50 million then the 200 million you claiming.

>TV rights/streaming were leased for 10 years for 120 million

Source?

Based on DVD/Blu ray sales.

TV/streaming sales are generally 8 to 10 times the Blu-ray/DVD sales over the first 10 years (after that it depends on if it a classic or not)

I used the 9 time which puts it at 120. Even total shit like In the Name of the King back in 2006 got over 90 million in TV/streaming money.

>this shit passed
>Warcraft Arthas storyline never ever
kill me

And now you know why they keep making shitty movies with big name actors.

That's not a source. That's your assumption. An opinion based on factors you have no clue about. One movie doesn't equal every movie. That's an assumption, not a source and you don't even have proof of that.

user, its a rule of thumb, just as most films get 50% of the domestic, and 30% of the international take, the TV /streaming rights are going to be 8-10 times the DVD/Blu-ray sales.

And thus, this is why a movie that made some money is going to get a 2nd chance with a new director and a new distributor/partner, as there are enough people willing to take a risk on a film that who previous installment made a little money for the investors, even if they were hoping for more.

Kino taste

The first one was okay, would've been better if there was less shooty shooty and more of Lara exploring and solving puzzles, the action sequences brought it down. Enjoyable and tightly written nevertheless, not a cult classic but a good movie.

Will I see the sequel in the cinema? Nope! But will gladly watch it on TV.

Attached: kx0eYETJjofzcpDG6NULmn4CfTxVOPEBmMSgAsYRHE8.jpg (640x542, 66K)

By that logic every movie would be a success

The games were honestly good but dishonest to hell, we were never getting the beginnings of Lara, it was an alternate reality Lara right from the start. In the third game she's a 35 old with a character of a good hearted auntie that goes bloodthirsty once in a while.
I miss the badass Lara.

Not that user but not really. Blade runner by those numbers lost about 80 million.

(The Rule of thumb for TV/streaming sales is (DVD sales * 3) * 9 (some films that look good get great blu-ray sales but it does not track to TV/streaming sales, as DVDs sales are better trackers of this)

Tomb Raider numbers by the rule of thumb were 121 million (over 10 years.)

While something like blade runner 2049 gets about 130 million in tv sales. (but still lost millions since it was so damn expensive.)

It passed the break even point. There are sources from news articles that say the break even point was 275 million which it surpassed so no. It already had a reason for getting a sequel. There actually was info. Where is the info that they made a deal for 120 million because that is still a assumption, not a source. Like you people make assumptions with no evidence. Not every movie gets the same deal and using the exception is not the rule.

WTF who watched the first one? No one. Why make a second film to a reboot no one wants?

user, It a assumption based on very real estimates on sales.

For example, the movie made 58 million and change domestic in ticket sales, so the rule of thumb is that it had about 29 million in earnings from domestic sales. It might of been 32, it might of been 25, but it a well regarded way of calculating how much money is earned by a movie.

Just as the 216 million overseas ended up earning the studio about 64-65 million, and its DVD sales of 4.5 million means the TV/streaming revenue is about 120 million.

since the movie cost about 90 million, and the promotion budget generally is the same size as the movie production cost, you are looking at the movie making about 40 million dollars - however that will be only realized by say, 2025-2027 when the movie has run it full course, however between the income from the movie screens, DVD/blu ray sales, and the first TV/streaming sales it most likely collected about 180 million in total revenue, which is it break even point and it will make another 40 million in the 2nd round of TV/streaming sales.

Of course said profit will be quickly itemized as a loss for tax reasons, but that how hollywood works.

Of course, you can not believe this, even if I work in brokering TV sales for rights holders to overseas stations.

Why are they trying so desperately to make Vikander a star? It's kind of weird, and she's not even physically the right actress for the role.
Plus the first movie was a failure anyway.

Why?

>first movie was a failure anyway.
Broke even. and Vikander is a big enough star with the award wins that she can get a movie funded, to show that the film will not be a cinimax special.

>this gets a sequel but not Warcraft or John Carter Of Mars

Attached: 1478789076467.png (297x294, 149K)

Yes user you know more about movie business than Hollywood.....

Ok I guess Jews these days just love wasting money...

Rule of thumb is to add 1.5x - 3x of the budget back into it to account for marketing, advertising, etc.

I agree with this sentiment

But those movies are shit....

t. poor goyim

>Warcraft
Would have to be about Jaina
>Joan Carter
There's your sequel

Attached: Bundy.jpg (564x421, 54K)

>Broke even
Extremely debatable stupid shill, and it definitely flopped domestically and on opening day.
>Vikander is a big enough star
No she's not, she's not even a household name. You ask anyone about her outside of your mom's basement, and they won't know who the fuck you're talking about.

it was not a full media buy, and even if it was, it would be about a 90 million buy, not a 200 million buy like the user claimed.

Watch Kill List. Legitimately one of my favorite movies, the fucking ending man, christ

She won a oscar and married to Michael Fassbender. She going to get roles for a while user.

>hurr durr muh media buy
You're not taking into account advertising which drastically inflated the budget and which sites don't take into account you dumb fuck.

>Vikander is a big enough star
Tons of people win oscars, winning one doesn't automatically make someone a household name.
>and she married this guy!
Oh okay? So we're tying her alleged success down to who she married to now, not her actual work.
>She going to get roles for a while user
Only because she knows who's jew dick to ride to get roles.

Media buy includes advertizing idiot. They spent at the time of release about 20 million in TV ads, which is much less then other movies (for example, "wrinkle in time" spent over 30 million.) So stop making a fool of yourself.

Source: Variety

How the fuck is costing 90m and making 60m not a flop
Some people here man
Completely deluded

She won it only three years ago,

She works hard (23 films in since 2010) is not expensive, and is not a coke head, Co-finances some of her films, and she had a really good year in 2016 so a lot of people have been giving her a chance.

Why is that hard to understand?

Since there is
- International Sales
- DVD/blu Ray sales
- TV / streaming sales

all of which make up a much bigger portion of a films income then US ticket sales.

>Sequel
wat

Are you that stupid? Nigger I live in Bristol and I know for a fact that the country takes 40% of the ticket price, and theaters are privates and take their own share.
Who the fuck told you that international sales is the real income

Never playing another TR game or watching a TR movie unless Lara has a body like this

Attached: ClMEfjeUYAAzJl5.jpg (640x480, 46K)

3x it's budget is usually enough. Yea Forumss meme math is laughably inaccurate

They give this a sequel and not Alita? The world needs to burn.

>Ctrl + F
>no horses
WTF

Hello user

>Marketing is 3x the budget
This would turn almost every blockbuster into a flop

Gemma would be the best choice. Plus she speaks in an English (da Norf) accent.

Attached: Gemma Atkinson tennis 03.jpg (1200x1800, 430K)

Disney killed Alita. But even then Alita did not triple it's budget and this did

isn't she pregnant right now?

I really liked the first movie but I didn't play any of the stupid vidya
it was a cool adventure flick

Gave birth (via caesarian, due to haemorrhaging) last month. Already returned to gym workouts so she'll soon be back in shape.

Attached: UP-Gemma-Atkinson-25.jpg (600x900, 101K)

But she'll have those gross scars.

Fucking ugly. Fitting for nuLara

Are you actually so deluded that you think they give the slightest fuck what gender the protagonist is? You think the stupidly rich are just gonna throw money in a hole because they just have this desperate altruistic NEED to see more female protagonists in film? Christ you people are fucking stupid.

Not even consistent with your own braindead racism, do you listen to yourself when you speak?

>Kill List
legit good. keep in mind it starts out slow in the first half but holy shit that second half.
>High Rise
honestly disappointed by it. The idea of it sounds cool but watching it unfold was really lame. most of the civil unrest of the tower happens in quick cuts.
>Free Fire
best film by far and his most accessible

There was a first movie?

Og Lara is best Lara

Attached: tomb_raider_ii___dagger_of_xian_poster_by_feareffectinferno-d6p79py.png (1024x1528, 1.53M)

Attached: trmovie15.jpg (4037x3896, 1.08M)

I actually liked the last movie.
I don't care that she's skinny with small tits because that's my preference.

I think they also said something in vein of thinking the movie as an advertisement cost, so they didn't care if it made money back or not in the same sense studios usually do.

jon voight looking ass mother fucka

I had the left image as a permanent poster on my wall through my teens

>nobody has mentioned his best, most entertaining film (Sightseers)

We got from this
youtu.be/H0pB7aRqow0

To dis muh frens
youtu.be/u5_15D7XCNc

You people are incredibly stupid. Vikander is a much better actress, she's not just a bimbo who acts cool but can't really express any emotions. She's far more relatable and the second clip is actually a joy to watch. Everything is fast paced, grounded in reality and she actually seems like a believable character. On the other hand the first clip is impossible to watch without laughing. It's incredibly stupid and full of errors and mistakes. She should have died 1 milion times there but instead she's just fine and with the same stupid unrelatable face. Also the choreography is fucking shit. Fuck all of you, you are all no taste faggot plebians.

>catlady at shitposting dang how embarrassing....
Better to stay on ressetera or leftypol then.

What in the world are you on?

>How the fuck is costing 90m and making 60m not a flop
Fun fact: Other countries exist, and their money is also money

yes vikander is top tier actress and also goddess tier looks wise

Funny and depressing

TR is a concept that doesn't work in movies because the draw is that it's YOU who is raiding tombs and solving puzzles. If it could be done it would have to be fun and adventurous like a good Bond flick. But they need someone who can fill the role if you know what I mean. Otherwise you should call it tiny-tits Tina and the tempting trinket.

The movie was horrible, Vikander is a Weinstein hoe. There's even a plotline similar to TLJ where she finds her dad living in a cave for like a decade. She thought he was dead but he was just a bum like Jake Skywalker.

Attached: harvey_weinstein_alicia_vikander_swarovski_dinner_cannes_p_15.jpg (720x1081, 127K)

>TR is a concept that doesn't work in movies
Apologize

Attached: tr2001.jpg (1920x800, 95K)