Why did this bomb in 1982?

probably because the theatrical cut was terrible.

The lesson was; every science fiction movie does not need to be released in the summer competing against blockbusters.
The fun blockbuster mentality fouled up the expectations of much of the audience and the mainstream critics.
Roger Ebert went from thinking that Blade Runner was terrible to about 20 years later rating it as one of the greatest films ever made.

In the early 1980s imo it was not yet understood by producers and studio executives the difference between a summer blockbuster movie like Star Wars, ET or Indiana Jones and a more artsy science fiction movie which we would recognize today like;
Moon, District 9, Children of Men or Sunshine.

Studios now realize they can release movies throughout the year to avoid competing against the feel good huge summer box office films.
The Thing suffered from a similar release date problem.

- One of the producers of Blade Runner admitted in the film commentary that he regretted not releasing Blade Runner in December as a more artsy movie. I think he's right.
But his problem in 1983 was that he did not accept Blade Runner for what it was. And with the narration he added and the reshot ending he insisted on, he was trying to make BR into something it wasn't; more of a feel good film like Raiders of the Lost Ark or ET.

Instead BR was more like Silent Running or Solaris (1972) or even Chinatown.


BB ;-)

it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈

[deleted]

In a way there's nothing to explain about Blade Runner's reception. *Most* movies lose money or barely break even and lots of now-beloved films didn't find much of an audience (or get much critical love) in their time. In a way, it's only when something hits big that need to be explained.

But let's try a different tack. It's a Wonderful Life, Vertigo, Sweet Smell of Success, Willy Wonka and The Chocolate Factory, Spinal Tap, Brazil, Princess Bride, Children of Men, Zodiac... all either lost money or just barely edged into profit on first release. Like Blade Runner they're all somewhat unclassifiable, intense, hard to summarize and advertise, there's something novel or interestingly complex about them relative to their underlying genres. In other words, the exact same characteristics that have given these films staying power and allowed them to become beloved over time are what stacked the odds against them at the box office originally.

If there *is* an explanation of why BR bombed (relatively speaking), I think it's of this kind: BR just is one of those films that *might* not connect with many people right away. Of course it *could* have become a big smash (Harrison Ford increased the chances of that in 1982 just as Jimmy Stewart did in 1948 and Burt Lancaster did in 1957). Sometimes the public and the critics are *right on top of* something that's great - or put another way, just occasionally one of the biggest films of the year is also one of the very best and the kind of film people will be talking about and watching for decades to come. But that's pretty rare, and in all such cases it took luck for things to work out that way. Psycho, The Graduate, The Godfather, Pulp Fiction, No Country, etc were all massive hits, but they need not have been: they could have all (relatively) flopped and had to find their audiences the hard way.

The bottom line is that although movie studios try (especially these days) to only make safe bets, the best, most resonant films aren't formulaic and so *aren't* particularly safe bets. Hence, necessarily, lots of the best films for the long run do poorly at first.

Couple problems:

First, this presumes a financially successful movie is therefore a good movie.
There are too many examples to cite that render that notion a farce.

It presumes that if a film was not financially successful, it was therefore received as a bad movie.
Same farcical dilemma.

What happens then is the audience who liked it upon initial release, or those who discovered it later, adopt this risible posture to achieve a version of "i knew it all along" or "i told you so" when the film finds a second life as a 'cult classic'.


So it's just a kind of bullsh!t people harbor for purposes of ego. and it's really kinda weird.

My favorite part of this whole thing is the understanding that if it was a huge financial success at the time, many of you would have hated it.

Second, if after no more than 3 times seeing it one still doesn't know what they saw, then that person is afflicted with some form of mental malady; it isn't a virtue of the film.






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmK8-13LTqI
I Excel and Prevail

[deleted]

The movie released in 1982 was a very different version than the Director's Cut... perhaps if it had been released the way Ridley Scott wanted... it would have been more successful since most people agree that it's a superior version that the Theatrical Cut... anyways I don't think 1982 audiences were ready for this... it was ahead of it's time.

This kind of reminds me when Marty McFly plays Johnny B. Goode at the end of Back To The Future and everyone stares at him when he does his 80s crazy rock stuff... and he says "...But your kids are gonna love it".

Critical response may have been lukewarm due to the fact that the movie was so cutting edge that they didn't realize how groundbreaking it was what they were watching.

As for the audience response, Scott himself said "not enough action" and I agree.

Clearly has stood the test of time as a classic.