Why did this bomb in 1982?
Why such bad audience and critical reception?
shareWay 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
by paololita » Tue Aug 23 2016 20:07:35
IMDb member since April 2009
Why such bad audience and critical reception?
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.
shareIt 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.
shareIt 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.
shareThe 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.
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...
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.
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?