Blade Runner franchise

A subforum for discussions about Film, TV, and Videos.

Moderators: New Moderators, Board Staff

FreakyFilmFan4ever
(In)Sufficient Director
(In)Sufficient Director
User avatar
Age: 30
Posts: 7569
Joined: Jun 09, 2009
Location: Playing amongst the stars
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Blade Runner franchise

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby FreakyFilmFan4ever » Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:12 am

View Original PostRay wrote:The original Blade Runner came out in an era that was saturated with either light-hearted (relatively) fare like (Again) ET, Star Trek 2, Conan the Barbarian, or much more terrible R rated fare (Friday the 13th) but much more accessible to a general audience. Teens who go out to the movie theaters aren't going to go out to go see smart movies they're going to go out to see stuff blow up, or to see their girlfriends scream when they see Jason Voorhees slice someone's head off.

It's weird how you don't even admit that Superman was popular in the exact era that you're citing the rest of your information. But, given your citations, explain to me how those cult-classic Captain America movies made in the early 1990's, the cult classic Disney film The Rescuers, and that Batman movie made in the 1960's suddenly had popular installments made years later. Was it simply because letting people know that products exist goes a long way in making sure that people also buy said products?

Chuckman
Chuckman
Chuckman
User avatar
Age: 34
Posts: 8261
Joined: Nov 11, 2011
Location: Chuckman

Re: Blade Runner franchise

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Chuckman » Tue Nov 07, 2017 11:10 am

Did you seriously call Conan the Barbarian lighthearted?

Ray
Elder God
Elder God
User avatar
Age: 24
Posts: 6351
Joined: Feb 10, 2014
Location: USA
Gender: Male

Re: Blade Runner franchise

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Ray » Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:14 pm

It's goofy as hell.
I’ll escape now from this world, from the world of Jean Valjean, Jean Valjean is nothing now! Another story must begin!
Avatar: "There's a Starman, waiting in the sky. He'd like to come and meet me, but he thinks he'd blow my mind."
Phew, I’m not tense anymore… now I’m just miserable.
People say "be yourself" but that's bad advice, if we were all to "be ourselves" many of us would stop wearing clothes. -Chuckman

Chuckman
Chuckman
Chuckman
User avatar
Age: 34
Posts: 8261
Joined: Nov 11, 2011
Location: Chuckman

Re: Blade Runner franchise

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Chuckman » Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:50 pm

I see you do not know the answer to the riddle of steel.

Ray
Elder God
Elder God
User avatar
Age: 24
Posts: 6351
Joined: Feb 10, 2014
Location: USA
Gender: Male

Re: Blade Runner franchise

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Ray » Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:57 pm

It's weird how you don't even admit that Superman was popular in the exact era that you're citing the rest of your information. But, given your citations, explain to me how those cult-classic Captain America movies made in the early 1990's, the cult classic Disney film The Rescuers, and that Batman movie made in the 1960's suddenly had popular installments made years later.


Rescuers Down Under bombed. Because it was a sequel to a film nobody cared for except die-hards. So that comparison doesn't work. Same for the 90's Captain America movies.

Adam Wests Batman had a whole friggin' TV show and has memetically mutated into THE version of batman that the baby boomers grew up with. It makes sense that would grow up with. On top of that. IT"S BATMAN. Batman defys every trend in every Solo movie he's ever been in, Even Batman & Robin didn't bomb the way we'd like to remember it did. It still made it out. . . okay all things considered.
I’ll escape now from this world, from the world of Jean Valjean, Jean Valjean is nothing now! Another story must begin!
Avatar: "There's a Starman, waiting in the sky. He'd like to come and meet me, but he thinks he'd blow my mind."
Phew, I’m not tense anymore… now I’m just miserable.
People say "be yourself" but that's bad advice, if we were all to "be ourselves" many of us would stop wearing clothes. -Chuckman

FreakyFilmFan4ever
(In)Sufficient Director
(In)Sufficient Director
User avatar
Age: 30
Posts: 7569
Joined: Jun 09, 2009
Location: Playing amongst the stars
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Blade Runner franchise

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby FreakyFilmFan4ever » Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:11 pm

...and early 90's Captain America? Or 1994 Fantastic Four, which was so cult that it didn't even get a theatrical release?

Gendo'sPapa
First Ancestor
First Ancestor
User avatar
Posts: 4388
Joined: Oct 24, 2006
Location: At the Movies
Gender: Male

Re: Blade Runner franchise

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Gendo'sPapa » Wed Nov 08, 2017 12:12 am

Honestly the key reason Blade Runner 2049 disappointed is the budget. There's little to no reason why the movie should have cost $150 million. I felt the marketing campaign was superb - perhaps they went after the wrong crowds because I felt the marketing for the film was ubiquitous & nonstop while I'd never even heard of Happy Death Day until it was in theaters & I'm not some pop culture Luddite - & the original Blade Runner is a film that has an equal present standing in pop culture as say the original Mad Max Trilogy. BUT, smart slow-moving character stories are sadly not the thing that can draw in the crowds needed to support a $150 million budget. Never did, never will. This issue of smart films finding an audience theatrically is multiplied when dealing with international markets & people viewing the film in other languages. People can knock James Cameron for the basic story of AVATAR but he knew what he was trying to do with that film, how much it cost & how elemental he needed that story to be in order to lure audiences to what was essentially an original film*. And it worked to the tune of $3 billion theatrically. Blade Runner 2049 meanwhile, while a more conventional narrative, is still playing in more arthouse sensibilities with character, theme & pacing. That keeps people at bay or at least at home until home video. A weird movie like Blade Runner 2049 might let Joe Average down, while he knows if he goes to see Thor 3: It's Perfectly Fine But Forgettable he will get to see that Thor dude punch a guy in the face with a hammer.

The cinema world was very different when the first Blade Runner came out but heavy thought minded movies have never been the thing of blockbusters. Sure, blockbusters can sneak in intellectually rich themes & concepts - the glorious feminism of Mad Max: Fury Road, the 9/11 allegories of War of the Worlds 2005, almost everything in The Dark Knight but they hide it all with big action set pieces & classic blockbuster tricks.

Either way, Blade Runner 2049 being a money loss in theaters is perfectly in tune with the original. Denis Villeneuve's strong & complimentary (but not surpassing) sequel works great & should inspire a lot of filmmakers & storytellers. It will have a much longer life in the world of storytelling than say Spider-man: Homecoming or Beauty & the Beast 2017. Also on the bright side the financial disappointment of the film protects us from the diminishing quality of a never-ending franchise. No Blade Runner 2051 coming out in two years. I also don't think we'll be seeing Blade Runner 2079 in 30 years.

*Knocking the movie as "Braveheart with Aliens" is a justifiable criticism but you can't undersell how successful the film is when it had no previous presence in pop culture. There were no Avatar Comics that kids grew up on, no books, no nothing. I'm hoping Cameron has plans to deepen the narrative in the sequels now that people know Pandora but even if he doesn't I'm sure the technical filmmaking will make up for the simple stories.


Return to “Film and Video”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest