Why did this bomb in 1982? - Blade Runner (1982) Discussion

[–] Tank-McQuade 7 years ago

Way ahead of its time for 1982

A bit slow
Too dark
Didn't exactly fit in with the star wars and ET Era
Too boring for some people's taste
The critics hated it

And so on and on...thankfully time has been good to this film and I'm looking forward to the sequel

reply

[–] davywap 7 years ago

Maybe it bombed because it's not actually that good?

reply

[–] KobiyashiMauru 7 years ago

Ridley Scott's films are not to everyone's tastes. 😵

Luke Skywalker, your Mom was hawt! Darth Vader

reply

[–] Blueghost 7 years ago

by paololita » Tue Aug 23 2016 20:07:35
IMDb member since April 2009
Why such bad audience and critical reception?

I'm going to get a lot of "hate posts" or negative posts for this, but I'm going to write it anyway.

The film was wonderfully shot, but the theme wasn't fully explored, and in this sense the critics who disliked it were correct in that it wasn't that good a film.

It's still a decent film, but it's more or less a crime drama dressed up as a scifi thriller. And if all you're doing is dressing up Sam Spade for a futuristic Los Angeles, then what exactly are you really creating? Not a great deal.

Blade Runner feels like an incomplete update of a classic film noire movie. But even in films like "The Maltese Falcon" you discover the motivations and themes of what drives men and women to crime.

You get some of that in Blade Runner, but not wholly. You never know what Rachel thinks of her status as a "replicant". Ridley Scott supposedly said that the film makes no sense if Deckard isn't thought or "known" to be a replicant, but if that were the case, then why all the mystery?

What you get is Rutger Hauer's character expressing anger at his plight of being created with a limited lifespan, but even in the famous death scene at the end you don't really know what it is he was hoping for by getting more life. Did he have hopes and dreams? Ambitions? Did Rachel? Why did he kill?

What did Deckard think of him? We get some narrative quips in the theatrical release, but there's no real introspection on his part. He doesn't commiserate with other cops. If he is a "replicant", then how come he could not at least put up a minor struggle against a "combat model"? Why is he battered around and toyed with, as opposed to really trying to get into their heads and battle them on their own level? According to the film he couldn't.

So in essence you're seeing a detective go in against a band of trained killers without backup. Again, if that's all you're making, then what exactly are you making?

Rachel never expresses wonderment, regrets, or much else. Hauer's character and his fellow replicants, are also fairly one-dimensional. The Go-Go dancer that Deckard blows away never has a motive for anything.

And that's why a lot of critics panned it.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4196) 7 years ago

Because it's boring and filled with ridiculous symbolism. Only weirdos are into symbolism, like Masons and such. These Masonic dorks seems to permeate Hollywood for some reason.

reply

[–] AngularTurnip (3334) 7 years ago

It demands a lot from its audience and fans of Harrison Ford's "Star Wars" films and "Raiders of the Lost Ark" were in no mood to oblige it.

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 4 years ago

It bombed because the original theatrical version had a tacky, monotone voice-over from Ford and a forced studio ending with leftover footage from The Shining. This film never got a full proper release until 1992 directors cut and 2007 final cut.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

The Shining footage hardly mattered.

I'm an outlier in that I liked the voice-over.

It added to the future-through-the-past noir vibe of the movie to my mind. I have read that the studio forced it on Scott and that Ford wasn't a fan either, hence, the deadpan delivery. The ending was more hopeful.

The Final Cut -- with its ambiguous ending -- led to the widely debated "Is Deckard a replicant or human?" which has raged ever since.

reply

[–] Gd5150 (11237) 4 years ago

As others said. Raiders, ET, Star Wars.

Like Bladerunner, Most of these dark sci-fi movies lack massive box office success.

Alien is in the same boat. Even Close Encounters although not quite as dark. The Fifth Element. Etc...

reply

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 4 years ago

I saw it on opening night and expected action and an exciting movie.

That wasn't the case but the concepts were never before seen and the ending was amazing.

It turned out to be one of my favorite films that I have watched countless times.

A lot of what's great is what's implied in the film. The conflict of emotions in the replicants is great. Roy kills the scientist that created them, then in going down the elevator and looks up like he did something great, then suddenly he is gripped by emotion that maybe he didn't, and looks down in confusion. Stuff like that made the movie great.

I always say, I'm happy that I got to experience many movies when they first came out and there was nothing like it. It's crazy to remember how it was to watch Star Wars as a kid in the movies. This film was another and I was on the edge of my seat a couple times and it's too bad it didn't do well. I will bring it up to young people and they never heard of it.

reply

[–] enriquesingh (1778) 4 years ago

I believe this type of movie will never be successful with general audiences.

So asking specifically why did it bomb in 1982 is not the question...
the question should be why does this type of film bomb?

It has to do with general audiences not interested in this type of film either visually nor in it's contents.

It does have a small fanbase which perhaps would be enough for Blade Runner to transition in a smaller
scale perhaps on a streaming platform either as live action or animation?

reply