When it first came out in the early 80's, I think people were expecting something like Star Wars, since Harrison was known that way. The fact that the film was highly visual, with limited movie dialogue and haunting music....it was just way ahead of it's time
It's look was original, and very much ahead of it's time. But the way Ridley Scott directed it, was not really ahead of it's time. His way of making "Blade Runner", had been done before. The difference is that people were not ready for something like "Blade Runner", because of it's bleak tone, dark atmosphere, and pessimistic look. During the 80's, alot of people were very optimistic.
It was a decade of celebration in a way. So a film like "Blade Runner" was not going to appeal to most peoples preference during that time. I also feel that the studio hurt the film to a certain degree. By adding in that annoying voice over, and happy ending that contradicted the rest of the film. If they let Ridley do what he wanted to do, then the film could of gotten a bit more love in my opinion. It might not of gotten RAVE reviews, but they wouldn't of been so mixed. Sadly, Ridley didn't have the clout that he has now. He wasn't on Spielberg's level, so he couldn't do what he wanted to do with this film.
Now in this decade, "Blade Runner" could be a big hit at the box office. And if hollywood had more faith in what it could do at the box office, then it might of made more money then "Saw 4" last year.
Last Films Seen:
Free Willy(1993)- 7/10
Bowling for Columbine(2002)- 8.5/10
reply
share