Could Blade Runner have been hurt by Harrison Ford's casting as Deckard?

[SSgt Burton]

See that's another thing with the trailer---

The final shot has what appears to be Batty jumping across the rooftop first, followed by Deckard giving the impression that Deckard is chasing Batty.

The reverse happened in the film. Not to mention that "Mr. Indiana Jones" gets his ass handed to him by all the antagonists, and "fails" in the end; were it not for Batty's intervention our "hero" would have ended up as street pizza.

I'll bet a lot of people walked out of the theater thinking "wtf was that?!" :unsure


Kevin

 

[nickytea]

YouTube - "Blade Runner (1982)" Theatrical Trailer

Doesn't seem terribly deceptive to me.

 

[Wes R]

I can't see Hoffman in it at all.

 

[CessnaDriver]

It's not for everyone, it's never been for everyone.
It was box office dissappointment only because the decision to make the film was made. They overestimated the sophistication of the audience for such a film at the time. Critics were not a help either. Though many ate crow later.
They were taking a risk on a hybrid film and lost, short term anyways. Long term I guess it payed off some. Sci Fi was in a renewed era and that probably made the risk seem less.

If it were being made today, it would still be a box office dud.

We're lucky we have it.


Sometimes some good films cannot appeal wider, if they did, they wouldn't be as good. Just the way it is.

 

[Nwerke]

The reverse happened in the film. Not to mention that "Mr. Indiana Jones" gets his ass handed to him by all the antagonists, and "fails" in the end; were it not for Batty's intervention our "hero" would have ended up as street pizza.

Absolutely. In fact the only thing he gets right is...killing two women. One of whom he shot IN THE BACK. Both were unarmed. Not to mention that his life is saved once by a woman he's supposed to hunt, and once by an enemy.

 

[SSgt Burton]

Sci Fi was in a renewed era and that probably made the risk seem less.

This is something else I was thinking about-

So I just watched Final Cut tonight. This is most definitely science fiction, however would the mainstream audiences have expected the subtle science fiction of Blade Runner, or something more "Star Trek/Star Wars-ish".

Let me try to clarify what I mean here-

It's 37 years in the future (1982-2019), there are flying cars, HUGE skyscraper buildings and cool looking gadgets like the VK and Esper machines...

BUT-

-The film takes place in Los Angeles on Earth not in outer space or another planet.

-Everyone still uses guns that fire (albeit powerful) bullets not laser guns.

-The "robots" in the film look and act just like people. In fact were it not for their extraordinary strength, they would be indistinguishable from humans. Of course this was the point...

But were the audiences of '82 able to understand this? "Robots" (even ones that look human ala "Westworld") previously would have gears and circuits. When disabled they would clunk around and give off sparks. Not bleed real blood.

(Even Luke Skywalker's artificial hand didn't bleed, it gave off sparks. )

-The city looks like what I would imagine downtown Tokyo looks like. Not some futuristic version of Los Angeles (like say the future city of Logan's Run).


So my point is with Harrison Ford of Star Wars fame in the lead, were the audiences expecting a Star Wars like futuristic setting?


Getting back to Deckard's character- Deckard is an anti-hero. Unlike the main roles of those other 1982 films like Rocky III or Firefox for instance- You have someone like Clint Eastwood who "gets the job done" and kicks butt in the process. Or classic Rocky- the chips are down and the hero looks as if he has reached his lowest point, but comes from behind and turns up a win.

Audiences were used to seeing Ford in that larger than life, swashbuckling hero role. Deckard is not that role.


It makes me wonder if a movie like Blade Runner would have done better in the mid Seventies, when movies like Taxi Driver and The Godfather (with anti heroes and bloody shootouts) were Oscar material.


Kevin

 

[CTF]

Really, it's hard to hard to take this thread seriously when you can't get the name correct.

 

[phez]

To be honest it took seeing Blade Runner a few times to get a handle on exactly WTF was going on (and then I still missed the whole Deckard is a replicant thing :lol).

I do not think Ford caused the movie to flop, I think the story was difficult to get a handle on after seeing it only once regardless of the actors. Harrison Ford I think is likely responsible for the initial surge in ticket sales since he was good in SW & ROTLA. It may not have even gotten that had Ford not been in it.

Lets face it, it was a very downtrodden kick in the teeth compaired to the other Sci-Fi movies of the time. In stead of using technology to move out and investigate space, kill well defined bad guys, and improve humanity we decide to create copies of people who have no rights to get around slavery laws. If they act up we have a special police force to slauter them. It does not really give you a warm fuzzy feeling about man kind. It was really a whole different vibe than people were used to seeing.

 

[rodneyfaile]

See that's another thing with the trailer---

The final shot has what appears to be Batty jumping across the rooftop first, followed by Deckard giving the impression that Deckard is chasing Batty.

The reverse happened in the film. Not to mention that "Mr. Indiana Jones" gets his ass handed to him by all the antagonists, and "fails" in the end; were it not for Batty's intervention our "hero" would have ended up as street pizza.

I'll bet a lot of people walked out of the theater thinking "wtf was that?!" :unsure


Kevin

Exactly. The trailer gives the impression Deckard is like an urban Rambo robot hunter.

Most of us here have seen the movie enough times that when we see the trailer we know exactly what scene it is and what is happening. If you never saw the movie, and all you had to go on was the marketing at the time, you probably thought you were going to see an action packed sci-fi movie and could potentially be disappointed.

 

[androidandy]

I don't think it was any one thing that prevented Blade Runner's success in 1982. It was a combination of a bunch of things including all of what was said above. The main question is whether or not Harrison's selection as lead Hurt it, helped it, or was just a little bit of both. Even though it may have been like thinking you were about to eat a spoonful of pudding and instead it was beef gravy. Chances are a few people went back after they realized what it was for a second taste, but it is possible that many were permanently turned off. Still to this day the movie is an acquired taste. Chances are in the end though it was a wash, and helped as much as he may have hurt.

Andy