MovieChat Forums > RocknRolla (2008) Discussion > Rocknrolla 2 finally announced.....

Rocknrolla 2 finally announced.....

posted 12 years ago by miktal-1
23 replies | jump to latest

..as NEVER happening!

I really feel sorry for all of you Ritchie fans who are still (nearly 5 years on) awaiting the sequel to this movie, when the painful reality is clearly there for you to see. I feel I need to educate you in order to bring some closure to your lives, so you can move on.

(1) The only reason there is even talk of a sequel, is not because of the films massive success(?), it`s because Ritchie promised it at the end of the film, and therein lies your problem. There isn't a single person in the whole of Hollywood who can make that kind of promise, before a film goes on release, therefore, Ritchie had absolutely NO RIGHT to tell you that!!

(2) Do you guys remember a film called, The Golden Compass? That WAS a trilogy or was supposed to be. The story was left open ended and incomplete, so where is the sequel? The directors and actors are all on record saying they want to finish the story...providing the first is a success, it wasn't and bang goes The Golden Compass 2! On paper, the film DOUBLED its $180m budget by taking $360m worldwide. So you are probably thinking, that that is more than enough profit to get the sequel done, right? WRONG! If you double your budget, you merely break even.

(3) Diminishing returns - It is very rare for a sequel to take MORE than the original, that is why the returns are smaller or diminished. It is normally worked out at 75% of the original. If the film generated $100m, any sequel would be expected to take around $75m, a trilogy, even less. There are exceptions to these rules, but only for iconic films with large built in fan bases like, James Bond or The Comic Book Heroes, Harry Potter, or even TV shows (Sex in the City). I think it`s fair to say that RnR doesn't qualify and any sequel would take LESS.

(4) At the time of RnR`s release, Warner Bros are on record as saying that the film is "Very English and funny in places" LOL!!!! That`s hardly a ringing endorsement of a film they`ve just spent $25m on and are supposed to be promoting! It`s widely known that WB hated RnR and tried to cut their losses by giving it a small release.

Now, with all of that new found knowledge in mind, lets look at RnR`s numbers

Budget $18m
Worldwide takings $25m
Remember, as a rule of thumb, you have to DOUBLE your budget to break even. However, even if WB actually spent less on advertising and promotion (lets say only $5m), you still are MILES away from the numbers needed for a sequel, AND THAT IS THE ONLY THING THAT GREEN LIGHTS IT!!

It`s time to jog on, boys.

"What was that, an exhibition?"

[–] amr25 12 years ago

Erm, since when does doubling your budget = breaking even?

[–] miktal-1 12 years ago

What it cost to make the film is approximately the same needed to finish and promote it.

Post production cost money, advertising, promotions, special effects, graphics design, editing, music, even the cost of producing the DVD`s comes out of the post production budget.

Warner didn't want to spend any extra money on this as they didn't feel the film would generate enough interest to make it back.....in other words, they thought it stank.

"What was that, an exhibition?"

[–] amr25 12 years ago

I'm pretty all that is considered in the original budget.

[–] miktal-1 12 years ago

Yes of course it is, that`s why it`s called a budget.

There comes a time when you have to cut your losses if you feel you are not going to gain anything from spending more money. You don't throw good money after bad.

All of this is moot anyway, when the actual problem was nothing to do with the budget, it was Ritchie promising you a sequel, when he really shouldn't have.

You can hint at a sequel in the ending, as many films do, but you cant SAY that it will happen. Did you read that at the end of, The Golden Compass, I think not.

"What was that, an exhibition?"

[–] tblackwo 12 years ago

christ man, for something you think was terrible, youre sure giving it a lot of thought.

You guys got fat while everybody starved on the street. Now its my turn - Frank White

[–] miktal-1 12 years ago

Well actually, I didn't. All that I`ve told you is blatantly obvious with a little thought. In fact thinking about it, here`s another reason why it wont get made. The budget will be bigger than before. They certainly wont get Tom Hardy and Idris Elba for the same money this time around

"What was that, an exhibition?"

[–] Oldmanscorcesedeniro 12 years ago

i'm sure the film made a lot more over the past few years through dvd sales and you obviously do not how many its sold, your point about breaking even is moot.

[–] miktal-1 12 years ago

i'm sure the film made a lot more over the past few years through dvd sales and you obviously do not how many its sold

Well, neither do you so how can you be sure? Until you have actual figures, as I`ve shown you, then your point is moot.

There is nothing at all wrong with liking this film, if that`s what floats your boat, but the fact remains that it was and always will be a critical and box office flop.

"What was that, an exhibition?"

[–] WallyBalls 11 years ago

Actually the rule of thumb in Hollywood is a film needs to make 3 times its production costs to break even. Also with the whole Guy Ritchie "had no right to promise" the 2nd and 3rd film is rubbish. He had every right he owns the characters & that particular universe. He can promise anything he wants. Rocknrolla was designed as the 1st part of a trilogy he had worked out in his head. The only bad thing is that the movie wasn't received as well as it could have or should have been.

If this movie came out today it would make a mint. Therefore ensuring the trilogy would go on. At the time of Rocknrolla's premiere, 2008, America/The World wasn't as accepting of Gerard Butler in anything short of a 300 type of movie. Idris Elba & Tom Hardy were hardly marquee names. Mark Strong wasn't the go to bad guy that he is today. The biggest name in the movie at the time would have been considered Tom Wilkinson.

Adding insult to injury the movie was written quite smartly. If you didn't pay attention you missed a whole hell of a lot. At the time Guy Ritchie was also coming off of a couple of failures at the box office with Swpt Away and Revolver. That would make the studio nervous in releasing the film and the moviegoing public a little skittish.

All of these factors lead us to what was the perceived failure of the Wild Bunch Trilogy.

"This is a house of learned doctors!"

[–] miktal-1 11 years ago

Actually the rule of thumb in Hollywood is a film needs to make 3 times its production costs to break even.

What source are you using for this? Show me where films routinely spend 2 x more on advertising/marketing than the actual film.

Also with the whole Guy Ritchie "had no right to promise" the 2nd and 3rd film is rubbish. He had every right he owns the characters & that particular universe. He can promise anything he wants.

But who is is PAYING for it. Since he isn't, it is the investors/studio who say yes or no, writing a sequel before the first one is deemed a success, is totally pointless. Even more so after his last two WRITTEN films completely TANKED!!

Also, Ritchie sold the script, which means it is the studios property to do with what ever they want. There may have been a clause that he directed it, but it doesn't belong to him anymore.

The only bad thing is that the movie wasn't received as well as it could have or should have been.

LOL! Mate, you are a clown. Why didn't Ritchie think of this excuse? Tell him to go back to Warner Bros and say..."The film only failed because people didn't like it", see how far he gets!! LOL!!!

One more thing before you decide if you`re gonna cry yourself to sleep tonight. since RnR came out, there has been FOUR Paranormal Activity films....a fifth is due next year.

"What was that, an exhibition?"

[–] WallyBalls 11 years ago

Yeah sure i'l produce a source as soon as you produce a source for this "Remember, as a rule of thumb, you have to DOUBLE your budget to break even."

You'll notice the same phrase used in my statement "RULE OF THUMB" there is no hard fast rule for break even point. Unless you are an actual producer on the movie with the ledgers.

Yeah and naming a movie called Episode IV that's not a promise or anything is it.

and an argument about Paranormal Activity and the fact there are 5 of them what the hell does that mean other than the American movie going public are a nice bunch of sheeple. Does the fact that Paranormal Activity costs almost nothing in comparison to make against how much it earns. Thats why it warrants a sequel surely as a film fan you are not arguing that a found footage film is stronger/better than a movie with a strong plot/characters.

"This is a house of learned doctors!"

[–] koffeenkreame41-1 10 years ago

Actually the rule of thumb in Hollywood is a film needs to make 3 times its production costs to break even. Also with the whole Guy Ritchie "had no right to promise" the 2nd and 3rd film is rubbish. He had every right he owns the characters & that particular universe. He can promise anything he wants. Rocknrolla was designed as the 1st part of a trilogy he had worked out in his head. The only bad thing is that the movie wasn't received as well as it could have or should have been.

If this movie came out today it would make a mint. Therefore ensuring the trilogy would go on. At the time of Rocknrolla's premiere, 2008, America/The World wasn't as accepting of Gerard Butler in anything short of a 300 type of movie. Idris Elba & Tom Hardy were hardly marquee names. Mark Strong wasn't the go to bad guy that he is today. The biggest name in the movie at the time would have been considered Tom Wilkinson.

Adding insult to injury the movie was written quite smartly. If you didn't pay attention you missed a whole hell of a lot. At the time Guy Ritchie was also coming off of a couple of failures at the box office with Swpt Away and Revolver. That would make the studio nervous in releasing the film and the moviegoing public a little skittish.

All of these factors lead us to what was the perceived failure of the Wild Bunch Trilogy.

Agreed, great post.

"I am the ultimate badass, you do not wanna `*beep*` wit me!"- Hudson in Aliens.

[–] coop032 11 years ago

This is a great film. And from what I remember, the reviews were quite good. Didn't WB release Sherlock Holmes and Rocknrolla? Maybe they owe Guy Ritchie one....

[–] wild_cobra427 10 years ago

Home Market Performance

Domestic DVD Sales..........$8,404,511
Domestic Blu-ray Sales......$1,333,513

Total Domestic Video Sales....$9,738,024

Example of senility.http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/2779/paintx.png

[–] bgko18-600-490802 11 years ago

And this film is better than both the Sherlock Holmes movies. Might not be as big of a blockbuster financially, but more interesting. For all the talk of how good the second Sherlock Holmes movie was, I found it no better than the first.

[–] patches89 10 years ago

Why is a film being "very English" a cause for a lol considering a high number of hollywoods best actors are British

[–] miktal-1 10 years ago

It is not the specifics of what was said, it`s a statement that appears to be struggling to say anything positive about the film.

"What was that, an exhibition?"

[–] SirBallsInHand 10 years ago

What I see here from the OP is not an honest attempt to stop the dissemination of unfounded rumors and misinformation (Which I would applaud), but instead I see a snarky, snide and nasty *beep* standing on a soapbox jerking himself off using his own perceived intelligence and power of critical thinking as sexual stimulation. I was gonna pass this post by, ignoring the fact that you did that douchey thing loser youtubers do by posting a misleading subject title just to lure people into reading your pile of *beep* when it became clear that you only came to hear to *beep* on a movie and it's fans for still holding out hope for a sequel that, let's be honest would be nothing short of spectacular. I am bothered way more by your *beep* attitude than NOT getting a RnR Deux. You were not trying to clear the air, you were taking a big steamy dump and then pointing to it proclaiming a Sherlockian level of deductive thinking.

..... _ ......._
.....\.\....././
......\.\..././
.......\.\././
........\.V./ Y-.
....../|......`..|
....| |.........../
.....\.........../
......\........./
.......|.......|
.......|.......|

Jog on.

[–] mnozarova 10 years ago

Because what Hollywood says about a film has so much to do with its quality. Very British? They could have said "too many long words for us" right away.

[–] thisjustin804 10 years ago

lol, English.

[–] mnozarova 10 years ago

You know why it`s cause for a laugh? `Cause the guy is american. You don`t argue with those, you observe a joke writing itself in real life. Or pray for those poor in spirit if you`re religious or whatever.

Anyway this whole system of deciding which film to fund sucks some major ass. Cult films pretty much universally bombed. Pulp Fiction, Fight Club, Angel A, Donnie Darko, Irreversible, Reservoir Dogs, Enter the Void, Usual Suspects... Imagine a world without these fi-... Oh God I just scared the *beep* out of myself here.

[–] Slone_Karu 10 years ago

That is an awesome bunch of films listed there! Also a very good point, cult classics are brilliant.

I suppose we can still hold out hope for some sort of sequel. Look at Firefly, that did poorly on TV but gained such a cult status that 2 years down the line it got a film. Also the TV show Veronica Mars was cancelled in 2007 but 7 years later the film was released. Also there are other shows that could never be completed so they were finished by releasing graphic novels and the such. Sometime things happen.

The only difference here is that i haven't heard Guy Ritchie talking about the wild bunch in awhile

"I came here to drink Milk & Kick-arse. I've finished my Milk!"

[–] rogerdemarco30 9 years ago

There was a time when "The Chronicles of Riddick" was listed on the top 20 box office flops of all time....and yet it eventually received a sequel. Why? Strong DVD sales were the key factor. But then you had a persistent star that helped finance it....and a writer/director that was more than happy to help. Sure....the script was retrofitted with a more modest budget....but the sequel still came out none the less. Long story short....a sequel to this isn't outside the realms of plausibility.

[Never trust anyone that posts on only one IMDB board.]