criterionforum.org

Black Hat wrote:As for Ridley Scott, correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the original film unsuccessful upon release? It that's true, fuck him.

There were several factors which hampered the original release, some of which were out of his control. It came out the same summer as ET, and compounded with audiences taste for the kind of sci-fi Spielberg and Star Wars had delivered up to this point, it meant any film of a darker tone (Alien aside, which gained equal cache as a really beautiful-looking horror film) would suffer.

That's not counting all the troubles it had in it's production, down to the sappy ending and voice-over which hammers the plot over your head.

McCrutchy wrote:Let's be honest, outside of the two Refn films, Gosling is really not well-known

What planet am I on right now?

swo17 wrote:This sentiment is strange to me, because I've always thought of Blade Runner as this widely loved thing that I could never fully relate to. Is it not as big as Alien? Is that not so big either?

I don't think it's nearly as big as Alien, which was extremely successful in its initial release and spawned a series of sequels in its wake and generated imagery that is still almost universally recognized even by people who haven't seen the film.

None of those things apply to Blade Runner.

Yeah Alien's a mega blockbuster force, Blade Runner's a film with a small, but very passionate following.

Fly, whatever the reasons Blade Runner was and always has been a debacle since it was released which is now very much a part of its mythology. It just struck me as an extremely petty thing for Scott to say .

swo17 wrote:

McCrutchy wrote:Let's be honest, outside of the two Refn films, Gosling is really not well-known

What planet am I on right now?

A planet where the people inhabited will recognize Joanna Cassidy and Rutger Hauer more then Ryan Gosling.

Black Hat wrote:Fly, whatever the reasons Blade Runner was and always has been a debacle since it was released which is now very much a part of its mythology. It just struck me as an extremely petty thing for Scott to say .

I won't disagree with you there, but if he's not as well-composed and professional in interviews now he certainly has a good enough reason to be. Short of being rude or worse to the people he's talking to, I don't think anyone would blame him for being a little cranky due to whatever exhaustion he's experienced as far as the recent developments on his latest picture.

swo17 wrote:

McCrutchy wrote:Let's be honest, outside of the two Refn films, Gosling is really not well-known

What planet am I on right now?

Pretty sure The Notebook is a lot more popular than anything by Refn.

"not well-known" is not how I'd describe him at all, but this is the first time a film that big was basically put on his shoulders. I don't really remember how well La-La Land did at the box office, but looking at the last several years of his filmography I'm not seeing any major B.O. hits, just critical favorites for the most part. Even in something like The Big Short or The Ides of March, the supporting casts were padded with enough familiar faces to help it's commercial appeal.

La La Land made $150 million off a $30 million budget and was a multiple Oscar nominee, I would call it a fairly well known movie. It is true, though, that Gosling isn't largely a franchise-y actor, as this was I believe the first sequel he ever showed up in. I don't know if he'd be particularly well known overseas.

I'll reveal my age and say that Gosling is very popular with younger people. He's featured in all manner of memes and is a really good sport about it. Yes they're completely asinine but he's not some cult figure that edgelords emulate with their Drive jackets. Being featured on social media is good promotion these days and Gosling certainly has it. He's certainly not the current hotness that everyone has problems keeping their pants on for but he isn't some dude who just sort of you know...wanders in and does stuff.

Rating doesn't seem to be all that indicative of box success anymore either as as both Logan and Deadpool have been very successful. I really do think it's because it's a sequel to a cult film from thirty five years ago. Blade Runner has been incredibly influential but that's not enough to bring in the big bucks. Think of any cult film from the eighties that has been influential. You could pack in any number of stars and it isn't a guaranteed success (I'm sure all of you are lusting after a sequel to Flash Gordon).

Maybe the issue would lie in Gosling fanbase, as most of it are consists with younger females who love him in heartthrob mode. La La Land success was attributed to having him played up that mantle, just having the right appeal for a musical film, which skews heavily female. Blade Runner is mainly a cult sci-fi that bombed commercially in the eighties. This doesn't take any scientist to figure out that a Venn diagram would not have a significant crossover between the cohort of The Notebook fans and Blade Runner.

FWIW, and speaking to his general memeworthiness, Gosling is also pretty well known for his SNL appearances.

One blind spot to consider is that part of the "cult" (I hate this term in relation to this but I'll play along since I can't think of anything better) following this film has is in Hollywood itself. A lot of major directors will throw this out as a major influence, and it's aesthetic was the inspiration for a lot of films which were way more successful than Blade Runner was in 1982.

How do we define the boundaries between what is consider "cult" and what is mainstream? That should be the question, as we can talk about the appeal of the original film with your mainstream audience. True cult cinema would range from highbrow art films to trash such as Miami Connection. Blade Runner has been a home video stable for years, watched by many every new cut that comes out every fifteen years. The box office results for the sequel showed that most audience members aren't interested in renewing the universe of the series. Yet isn't the title too well-known to be consider cult material by film enthusiasts?

Maybe by the standards of this board where Su Freidrich can be name tossed casually, but your average 20 something in Riverside, CA that probably does come across as a somewhat culty, mildly obscure film.

Another problem is that it's not (at least from what I've seen) been on television a whole lot. Even basic cable, where they will run anything to death.

knives wrote:Maybe by the standards of this board where Su Freidrich can be name tossed casually, but your average 20 something in Riverside, CA that probably does come across as a somewhat culty, mildly obscure film.

Your average 35+ would have likely have heard of Blade Runner, even if they have never watched in any additional edition. It's a Science Fiction film staring Harrison Ford, that should give it enough notoriety to mainstream people, even if the following tends to be more cult then Star Wars.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:Another problem is that it's not (at least from what I've seen) been on television a whole lot. Even basic cable, where they will run anything to death.

Television stations don't played older films frequently, even TNT or USA rarely showed anything that is older then 1988. The film pops up on the premium channels from time to time, though I don't know which cut gets played, plus the aspect ratio which is cropped outside of Showtime.

IMDb ratings/Top 250 ranking for films of a similar vintage

Star Wars 1M/20
The Empire Strikes Back 950K/13
Back to the Future 830K/45
Terminator 2 825K/44
Raiders of the Lost Ark 735K/41
Jurassic Park 700K/199
Terminator 665K/229
Alien 645K/52
Aliens 550K/68
Blade Runner 550K/147
2001 480K/93

This is fairly consistent with what's always been my impression: that it's in the pantheon, if at the lower end (and only just below Alien).

Well, to be fair, 2010 bombed too!

Dead or Deader wrote:Television stations don't played older films frequently, even TNT or USA rarely showed anything that is older then 1988. The film pops up on the premium channels from time to time, though I don't know which cut gets played, plus the aspect ratio which is cropped outside of Showtime.

The 1982 cut was on rotation at HBO recently. And actually wasn't cropped at all.

swo17 wrote:

McCrutchy wrote:Let's be honest, outside of the two Refn films, Gosling is really not well-known

What planet am I on right now?

The planet of incomplete

McCrutchy wrote:Let's be honest, outside of the two Refn films, Gosling is really not well-known, except maybe as a hearthrob in chick-flicks and comedies.

swo17 wrote:IMDb ratings/Top 250 ranking for films of a similar vintage

Star Wars 1M/20
The Empire Strikes Back 950K/13
Back to the Future 830K/45
Terminator 2 825K/44
Raiders of the Lost Ark 735K/41
Jurassic Park 700K/199
Terminator 665K/229
Alien 645K/52
Aliens 550K/68
Blade Runner 550K/147
2001 480K/93

This is fairly consistent with what's always been my impression: that it's in the pantheon, if at the lower end (and only just below Alien).

That's a self selecting sample. Most people don't vote on IMDB.

Would you suggest a better metric for assessing popular opinion?

Isn't this a question of popular awareness, not opinion?

What we're talking about is a bit nebulous and undefinable, and if we could nail it down we could all be rich men because it seemingly got past two major companies when it comes to this film.