Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
BLADE RUNNER and John Carpenter's THE THING are two of the best science fiction movies of all time. BLADE RUNNER has had more influence on science fiction in the past 35 years than any other movie except for STAR WARS. Both movies have since developed rabid fans, and even the critics have come around.
But people forget that both films bombed at the box office and were generally rejected by critics. Here is a good overview of why:
38 Years Ago Today Two of the Best Sci-Fi Films of All Time Bombed in Theaters. What Happened?
Blade Runner and The Thing are considered masterpieces of American cinema. But on June 25, 1982, they debuted as critical and box office failures.
Nobody, and I mean nobody, has forgotten those films ate it at the b.o.
It's simple: All the movies I liked back then — naturally, Star Wars, Empire and Raiders — tanked, and (again, this was back then) everything I hated did well if not gangbusters.
But horror? Nah. Those movies almost never did well, with the exception of sucker punches like Halloween and Friday the 13th (the sequel to that movie got the green light before the trucks arrived with fresh bags of bulk popcorn kernels the following Monday).
Blade Runner 2049 maintains the tradition with a lackluster box office performance.
Blade Runner a stunningly good sci fi film. I saw it by myself and then dragged some friends to see it and they were blown away too. One of them thought it was some kind of Star Wars knock off because Harrison Ford was in it. Of course they corrected themselves after watching Blade Runner.
I loved The Thing too. Same scenario as before; went again cajoling the same group of friends to see it as well with the same result. I'll go see anything as I love films and hope I will get to see them again in theaters soon.
But horror? Nah. Those movies almost never did well, with the exception of sucker punches like Halloween and Friday the 13th (the sequel to that movie got the green light before the trucks arrived with fresh bags of bulk popcorn kernels the following Monday).
I saw Friday the 13th Part IIIin 3D in the theater. Funky blue and red cardboard sunglasses and all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AFtrEFkt
Blade Runner 2049 maintains the tradition with a lackluster box office performance.
Yup. I enjoyed the movie a lot but wasn't terribly surprised it failed to find an audience. It was a sequel of a movie that no one went to see the first time. And Dennis Viilleneuve's movies tend to be too smart for the popcorn audience. I think DUNE may run into the same problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Social Democrat
Blade Runner a stunningly good sci fi film. I saw it by myself and then dragged some friends to see it and they were blown away too. One of them thought it was some kind of Star Wars knock off because Harrison Ford was in it.
I remember what little marketing the movie received was all around Harrison "STAR WARS / Raiders of the Lost Ark" Ford. Hollywood knew they had a star on their hands at that point. I think what few people did go see BLADE RUNNER when it opened were expecting another Harrison Ford adventure romp. I don't share their disappointment, but I can kinda understand it.
Even when I first saw BLADE RUNNER (I think I was around 12 or 13?), I went in with different expectations. I had already pestered my older babysitters and friends of siblings for details about the movie. And I had already seen Nighthawks at least half a dozen times, so as soon as Roy Batty walked onscreen, I knew who the real star of the movie was.
I saw Blade Runner shortly after the film was released. Outstanding movie and I still watch it. I like it best with Matt Decker’s narration. Critics have since poo pooed the narration. Blade Runner is one of the few movies much better than the book the movie is based on, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Phillip K. Dick.
The Thing is based on a short story called Who Goes There? by John W. Campbell Jr. writing under the pseudonym Don A. Stuart. Mr. Campbell’s wife’s name was Donna, just an interesting aside. The Thing was panned by the critics as being too bloody and violent, liking the 1950s version The Thing From Another World. The 1982 version was much more closely based on the short story, though.
Both films were outstanding in my opinion. Roughly 40 years later I still enjoy an afternoon or evening in my chair enjoying both films.
Blade Runner is one of the few movies much better than the book the movie is based on, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Phillip K. Dick.
Very much agreed. I admire the "shift" that P.K. Dick brought to science fiction. But it has to be said: He was a bad writer. Painfully bad at times.
I actually rewatched BLADE RUNNER 2049 a couple of weeks ago. There is certainly a lot to admire there. It's visually stunning. Great music and sound. And there are some very moving scenes. But the movie has a lot of problems, and unlike its predecessor, its central premise isn't strong enough to overcome that.
If you care about spoilers in a movie that came out years ago, stop reading.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The premise that drives the conflict of BLADE RUNNER 2049 is that a replicant became pregnant, thereby "proving" that they are alive, which will spark revolution and the downfall of society. Huh? Whuh? Not only does the movie fail to prove that assertion, but it doesn't explain why the consequences will happen.
The point of the original BLADE RUNNER was two-edged (pun intended): 1. What makes us human? 2. What happens when we lose that?
And very early in that movie, we get an answer: Empathy. If we suffer when another suffers, that makes us human. Early replicants couldn't really do that, which is why the Voight-Kampf test could detect them. But then along comes Nexus 6 and beyond. And Rachel asks the vital question, "Have you ever taken that test yourself?"
And the story does a great job showing that humanity has lost its humanity, but the replicants have literally become "more human than human." That is the entire point of the climactic ending, which even Ridley Scott has failed to understand.
But BLADE RUNNER 2049 apparently forgets all that and makes a silly assertion: The ability to conceive a child makes us human. Even at face value, that makes no sense at all. None. And why will that spark a revolution to topple society? Umm ... because Robin Wright Penn says so?
So yes, BLADE RUNNER remains one of my all-time favorite movies. But the sequel? Not so much.
I saw Blade Runner shortly after the film was released. Outstanding movie and I still watch it. I like it best with Matt Decker’s narration. Critics have since poo pooed the narration.
I prefer the narrated version as well. Just a great flick and being a big Rutger Hauer fan was icing on the cake. One of my all time favorites.
"Wake up, time to die!"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Huh? Whuh? Not only does the movie fail to prove that assertion, but it doesn't explain why the consequences will happen. 
