"Blade Runner" B.O. flop. Not enough 60 year olds want to go to movies?

[RichA]

Figure the average age of the viewer of the original movie in 1982 was around 25.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41546692

[moviePig]

On 10/8/2017 5:00 PM, RichA wrote:
> Figure the average age of the viewer of the original movie in 1982 was around 25.
>
> http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41546692

The new one was first slated for (converted) 3D, which would've gotten
my ticket.

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[Your Name]

The problem is that the original Blade Runner movie is a "cult classic"
... i.e., the vast majority of people don't actually like it. Most
people, and especially younger viewers, simply find the original
boring, confusing, and an awful mess, so why would they bother going to
see a sequel?!

See the article I've just posted in here: "Millennials really don't
like the original Blade Runner movie"

I tried to watch the original Blade Runner movie years ago and found it
to be complete crap. I couldn't even be bothered watching it all the
way through. The book it is (supposedly) based on is equally appalling
rubbish.

[RichA]

On Sunday, 8 October 2017 20:54:10 UTC-4, Your Name wrote:
> On 2017-10-08 21:00:50 +0000, RichA said:
>
> > Figure the average age of the viewer of the original movie in 1982 was
> > around 25.
> >
> > http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41546692
>
> The problem is that the original Blade Runner movie is a "cult classic"
> ... i.e., the vast majority of people don't actually like it. Most
> people, and especially younger viewers, simply find the original
> boring, confusing, and an awful mess, so why would they bother going to
> see a sequel?!
>

I would agree, I didn't much like it when I saw it. But then I disliked Star Wars too. Plus, I also couldn't figure out how a place like that where it rained all the time wasn't constantly flooded-out.

[Michael OConnor]

> See the article I've just posted in here: "Millennials really don't
> like the original Blade Runner movie"

They don't like it because it isn't full of CGI and hard rock music, and there isn't a scene with The Rock flying a helicopter with one hand, and shooting at the bad guy out the window of the helicopter with the other hand while he's maneuvering the helicopter underneath a skyscraper that is toppling over on it's side.

I like Blade Runner, love the cinematography and Vangelis score, and the noir atmosphere, but I always found it a little overrated. On the heels of "Raiders of the Lost Ark", I was expecting a little more action.

There were some things about Blade Runner that never made sense to me. First, he fights Batty, and instead of killing him like we would expect, Batty spontaneously dies on his own even though it was well before his four-year life span and he even wasn't injured in the fight. Also, why would the female skin job with the snake become an exotic dancer instead of trying to get intelligence on Tyrell, or find another way into Tyrell's inner circle, like Darryl Hannah did by getting to the toy maker guy? Her character seemed to add little to the plot except for getting killed.

I'll see the sequel when it comes out on DVD, it looks interesting, but I figured it would only really appeal to fans of the original.

[neo...@webtv.net]

The objections you mention are valid...BUT the " look " of the film is spectacular, nothing like it before or since really. The cast is as good as in any film, ever; they make the characters real and at the same time bigger than life. The dialogue is A plus with the narrated version offering deep texture to compliment the visuals.
My last viewing several years ago showed that the specifics of the story were not as good as the mood, but over all it is so impressive anything less than a 10-/10 would be unfounded. Now the sterile version without narration is over rated. Still the only film that presents an interesting view of androids and the question of what does being human really mean.
The book is tough to read because of Dick's style, which is choppy. It is better to see Bladerunner first as the recollection of this most stylish of films will smooth out Dick's prickly prose.
I find Metropolis to be vastly over rated. Too many sequences that fail as fantasy, sci fi, or story. But for anyone to not appreciate the qualities of Bladerunner is akin to a dislike of 2001... that is an aesthetic sensibility that is sad to contemplate.

[Michael OConnor]

Blade Runner is a truly unique film, unlike anything I've ever seen, and I agree Harrison Ford's narration saves the film and helps fill in many of the gaps, much in the same way I've read that the idea of having Martin Sheen do voiceover late in the process of creating "Apocalypse Now" and I think without it, the movie would have been boring and nearly incomprehensible in many parts. I've seen Blade Runner without the narration and agree it is overrated.

On a 1 to 10 I would rate Blade Runner an 8.5; I think it was one of the ten best sci-fi films of the 80's and it is a film I am proud to have in my DVD collection. It was a beautiful film that has stood the test of time, but there were a few flaws in the plotting of the movie.

Another thing that has bothered me is the whole "Deckard is an android" thing. In the original Blade Runner, if he were an android, wouldn't he have had a 4-year lifespan like Batty and the other skin jobs? I realize that it could have made him better at hunting down other replicants, but how many other cops besides Goff knew about it? Surely his boss, M. Emmett Walsh, would have known, as he would have worked there as a Blade Runner for some time before he quit and he was well known as a Blade Runner. As a cop in LA, Deckard would have had a past, where other cops had known him for years before Deckard got to the point of being a top Blade Runner and then a burnt out ex-cop. It's not like Deckard just showed up one day out of nowhere as a middle-aged ex-cop with no past history and nobody on the police force had ever heard or worked with him before and they're having him hunt down four skin jobs.

[hector]

On 9/10/2017 8:00 AM, RichA wrote:
> Figure the average age of the viewer of the original movie in 1982 was around 25.
>
> http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41546692
>

I never liked Blade Runner. I just don't care much. A bit tired of
pretentious AI tales too, no realism. Just playing on vague paranoid
ideas that probably predate WWII.

[hector]

I walk around Melbourne CBD it reminds me of Blade Runner, Asians and
Asian advertising all over the place.

[neo...@webtv.net]

As I wrote the look and feel of the film is its main appeal. To think of Pris and Rachael as " not human " , but not so in a " horror film " way is still food for thought. I assigned the " is Deckard human ? " question to the the film wants you to think about that compartment of your mind.
I don't recall the book clearing the air about this but if he is " not human " the audience has been taken to a strange place. This question adds gravitas to the story.

[neo...@webtv.net]

you'd have to explain in some detail why the film is pretentious and paranoid to make your post anything more than a bunch of words strung together like a poorly designed necklace

[neo...@webtv.net]

Maybe the strangest aspect of the film is that an area initially inhabited by native Americans and now by Blacks and Hispanics is populated by Caucasians and Asians . Is this a dystopia or utopia ? The logical progression would be a community of androids only.

[Bill Anderson]

For 30 years or however long it's been I've been declaring Deckard to
have been a replicant. No, the film never came right out and said so,
but all the clues were there for truly perceptive people (like me, of
course) to reach only one logical conclusion. His eyes glowed like a
replicant's, he displayed lots of old family photos at home just like
replicants do, Edward James Olmos knew what he was dreaming, etc. etc.
all the clues were right there. And yet there were people who were
insisting not only that he was human, but furthermore if he weren't
human the story didn't really make sense. They rightly pointed out he
seemed not to be dying on time, and I guess there were other arguments.
Heck, yesterday I read one of these "the ending of Blade Runner 2049
explained" articles and whoever wrote it never even entertained the
possibility that Deckard was a replicant. The whole explanation depended
on his being human.

And now to my surprise, after watching the sequel and thinking about it,
I'm ready to change my mind about his "true" condition. It's like the
answer has been sitting in front of me all along and I've been so
distracted by photographs and glowing eyes I just haven't realized until
the past couple of days that I'm not supposed to know whether he's a
replicant and that's the whole point. What qualities make us human, are
unique to homo sapiens, make us "better" than the lesser beings? The
movie's existential question isn't whether Deckard is a replicant --
it's whether there comes a point where it's no longer important to make
the distinction.

--
Bill Anderson

I am the Mighty Favog

[Your Name]

On 2017-10-15 08:34:28 +0000, hector said:
>
> I walk around Melbourne CBD it reminds me of Blade Runner, Asians and
> Asian advertising all over the place.

The recent episode of the BBC's tech news show "Click" had the
presenter saying something along the lines of "we're leaving the
Bladerunner style of Tokyo" when they went out to a smaller town for
one of the regional finals of a robo-sumo competition.

[Your Name]

On 15/10/2017 2:08 PM, neo...@webtv.net wrote:

<snip>

> But for anyone to not appreciate the qualities of Bladerunner is akin
> to a dislike of 2001... that is an aesthetic sensibility that is sad to
> contemplate.

Both "2001", "Bladerunner", and "Dune" are all b-o-r-i-n-g, over-rated,
often over-hyped piles of utter drivel best avoided (both the movies
and the books!), but at least "Bladerunner" has the sense to be
now-called a "cult classic" ... meaning it was a hopeless rubbish when
released and now a small minority people are silly enough to pretend
they actually like it. Whatever management idiot thought it would be a
good idea to make a sequel (of any of them!) should be fired ... from a
canon into a brick wall.

[neo...@webtv.net]

An expansion of my post and well expressed .I addressed somewhat the same idea in my posts about the bot in Red Planet. Man's is " distinctive " primarily in that he is the worst of the beasts. The idea that Bladerunner is a " cult classic " is hogwash . It was a mega favorite in the sci - fi community when released and was highly promoted in the media. Truth is even the basic question of what does it mean to be human is too " philosophical " for a generation focused on sex, money and social media.
It has been a long time since my last viewing but I seem to have connected Hauer's decision to allow Ford to live as a statement that he ( Hauer ) was a more noble creature than the killer in front of him and Hauer's demise was a representation of the lot of beings with integrity in the society of mankind.

[moviePig]

Well, I don't know that I feel exactly "sad" for people who don't get
2001:aSO, because there's certainly a wide spectrum of them. But, just
as certainly, for me, it packed as much of significance into its running
time as any move ever has or seems likely to.

[neo...@webtv.net]

I'm not sad for those pin heads it is sad for me to think these creatures not only exist but to a large degree determine what films are made.

[neo...@webtv.net]

On first and second viewings I did not pick up on the idea that Ford might be a replicant. Only after reading reviews did this idea present itself. I see so much more on screen than I did even a few years ago. This surprises me but what else is new.

[Your Name]

On 2017-10-15 21:00:33 +0000, neo...@webtv.net said:
> On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 4:54:47 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>> On 10/15/2017 3:59 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>> On 15/10/2017 2:08 PM, neo...@webtv.net wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>> But for anyone to not appreciate the qualities of Bladerunner is akin
>>>> to a dislike of 2001... that is an aesthetic sensibility that is sad
>>>> to contemplate.
>>>
>>> Both "2001", "Bladerunner", and "Dune" are all b-o-r-i-n-g, over-rated,
>>> often over-hyped piles of utter drivel best avoided (both the movies and
>>> the books!), but at least "Bladerunner" has the sense to be now-called a
>>> "cult classic" ... meaning it was a hopeless rubbish when released and
>>> now a small minority people are silly enough to pretend they actually
>>> like it. Whatever management idiot thought it would be a good idea to
>>> make a sequel (of any of them!) should be fired ... from a canon into a
>>> brick wall.
>>
>> Well, I don't know that I feel exactly "sad" for people who don't get
>> 2001:aSO, because there's certainly a wide spectrum of them. But, just
>> as certainly, for me, it packed as much of significance into its running
>> time as any move ever has or seems likely to.
>

> I'm not sad for those pin heads it is sad for me to think these
> creatures not only exist but to a large degree determine what films are
> made.

Even sadder are those who make these b-o-r-i-n-g drivel movies / books
... they're so off their faces on drugs and booze that they can't even
string together a sensible storyline. At least Arthur C. Clarke had the
"excuse" that it was the hippy 1960s when he wrote it (although the
original story "The Sentinel" that "2001" was based on was actually
written in 1948). :-\

[Lewis]

In message <aOedndQfhJ--MX7E...@giganews.com> Bill Anderson <billand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> For 30 years or however long it's been I've been declaring Deckard to
> have been a replicant. No, the film never came right out and said so,
> but all the clues were there for truly perceptive people (like me, of
> course) to reach only one logical conclusion. His eyes glowed like a
> replicant's,

In some versions.

> he displayed lots of old family photos at home just like
> replicants do,

Also, you know, people.

> Edward James Olmos knew what he was dreaming,

In some versions.

> I read one of these "the ending of Blade Runner 2049 explained"
> articles and whoever wrote it never even entertained the possibility
> that Deckard was a replicant. The whole explanation depended on his
> being human.

There is absolutely no question that in BR2049 (and in BladeRunner The
Final Cut) Deckard is a replicant, because that is what Ridley Scott has
always said and clearly wanted. Harrison Ford and Hampton Fancher had
different opinions.

> And now to my surprise, after watching the sequel and thinking about it,
> I'm ready to change my mind about his "true" condition. It's like the
> answer has been sitting in front of me all along and I've been so
> distracted by photographs and glowing eyes I just haven't realized until
> the past couple of days that I'm not supposed to know whether he's a
> replicant and that's the whole point. What qualities make us human, are
> unique to homo sapiens, make us "better" than the lesser beings? The
> movie's existential question isn't whether Deckard is a replicant --

True, that is not what the movie is about; it's about the nature of
humanity.

> it's whether there comes a point where it's no longer important to make
> the distinction.

Two "people" die in order to get Deckard to his daughter (well, many,
but two who are not opposing the attempt), K and Joi. Neither is
technically human, but each makes the decision to sacrifice for a cause,
and that is what the movie supposes as being human.

The relationship between K and Joi is the most interesting one in the
movie, I think, because Joi is so clearly artificial and insubstantial,
but her choice leads to her death, and she is perfectly aware of that
risk and chooses to take it anyway to protect K.

--
Everywhere is walking distance if you have the time.

[Lewis]

"Your Name", as you should know by now, is an idiot and a troll who
knows nothing at all about movies.

2001 is a long movie that requires thought and introspection, two things
YN has proven many times over to be incapable of.


--
He felt as if he'd been shipwrecked on the Titanic but in the nick of
time had been rescued. By the Lusitania.

[RichA]

Today, you could chalk-up what happened in "2001" to some kind of other dimensional quantum physics effect. As for being written in 1948, maybe the rockets in it should have been shaped like wide-waisted cigars with fins on the back with flames coming out the tail?

[hector]

The need to have a detective to find beings that are machines explains
it all. And then all the lore around the mystery of beings that are
machines, part of the culture. Yet no substance to any of it, just what
people like to think about.

[Bice]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 19:38:19 -0700 (PDT), Michael OConnor
<mpoco...@aol.com> wrote:

>There were some things about Blade Runner that never made sense to me. Fir=
>st, he fights Batty, and instead of killing him like we would expect, Batty=
> spontaneously dies on his own even though it was well before his four-year=

> life span and he even wasn't injured in the fight.

I just re-watched the first Blade Runner on TV over the weekend. I
didn't think the movie specified how old Batty was, but according to
IMDB when his profile is shown on a computer screen, his incept date
is given as January 8th, 2016. The movie is set in (late?) 2019, so
he'd be within a few months of the end of his four year lifespan.
Which would explain why he's so anxious to find a way to extend it.

Also, I don't think you can say for sure that he wasn't injured during
the fight. He has a lot of blood on him. Some of it obviously came
from bending over Pris' corpse, but maybe one of Deckard's shots
clipped him? There's clearly something wrong with him, since he has
to drive a nail through his hand to keep it functioning.


>Also, why would the f=
>emale skin job with the snake become an exotic dancer instead of trying to =
>get intelligence on Tyrell, or find another way into Tyrell's inner circle,=

In the book (and apparently also the movie), most replicants just
wanted to blend in and live out the rest of their lifespan pretending
to be human. In the film, Roy Batty was the only one obsessed with
finding a way to extend their life beyond four years.


> like Darryl Hannah did by getting to the toy maker guy? Her character see=

>med to add little to the plot except for getting killed.

Pris' seduction of Sebastian was probably Roy's idea, as a way for him
to get to Tyrell and demand a longer life.


>I'll see the sequel when it comes out on DVD, it looks interesting, but I f=

>igured it would only really appeal to fans of the original.

Yeah, if you weren't wild about the original, you probably don't need
to see the sequel in the theater. I love the first Blade Runner
movie, but thought the new one was kind of overlong and...eh. That
said, I'm still thinking about going to see it again before it's out
of the theaters.

-- Bob

[neo...@webtv.net]

Isn't Ford a specialist in this area ? Don't know what you mean by " explaining it all" Though the film made big changes from the book I don't recall any insights into the " life of a replicant " in the print version so the film would have had to expand on the idea of what it's like to be a manufactured product and what they did that made them desireable to have around.
That would be of interest if properly scripted and could have been added to beef up the story...but the film did not require this, for me the fact that there are entities that think, have emotions and resemble humans represented by the Pris, Rachael and Batty characters is all that's needed. They are personalities of interest not stereotypes or bland automatons, that's sufficient. You might as well ask 2001 to go into a segment about what it's like to be HAL .