Edward James Olmos: "Blade Runner Failed Because of Harrison Ford"

eh. i'd actually argue the other way. blade runner in the end worked because harrison ford had the perfect pitch for the character.i can't really fathom the movie without him.

and even if his 'fans' caused the movie to bomb, therefore aborting sequels -- why is that even a bad thing? sequels would have simply cheapened the whole thing, imo.

Reply

Hmmm... While Olmos probably is reading the situation correctly, i.e., Ford's fans rejected the movie because it wasn't what they were used to seeing the actor doing, I think he is being fairly disengenuous in laying that at Ford's feet.

Reply

Hmmm... While Olmos probably is reading the situation correctly, i.e., Ford's fans rejected the movie because it wasn't what they were used to seeing the actor doing, I think he is being fairly disengenuous in laying that at Ford's feet.

Reply

I agree with Olmos in that the fact he wasn't playing another hero in the Han solo/indiana jones mold caused dissapointment amongst his fanbase at that time and led to some poor word of mouth, i agree that he is what makes the movie work too and can see that clearly, In 1982 i think Deckard's character contradicted what was then Harrison Ford's star image. People wanted Han Solo. They didn't get it = poor word of mouth.

Reply

What was the BSG event? I drove by the ArcLight yesterday and saw something BSG-related going on, but haven't seen any coverage of it...

Reply

I saw this mentioned on your other BSG post, and I'm not sure that I agree with you - you seem to imply that there would be animosity between Eddie and Ford (implied more heavily in other post), and it seems that if Eddie's analysis is truly honest and accurate, that Ford himself might not disagree with it - no need for a throw-down between the two, which I certainly did not pick up on based on how you quoted Eddie.

Reply

He's not saying that it's Ford's fault that Blade Runner was a Box Office bomb, he's saying that it's *Because* of Ford, and the type of role his fans were expecting. We all know that Ford's performance is what makes BR great, and so does Olmos - all he's saying is that another, perhaps less likeable actor, might have been able to make the movie more successful.

Reply

I was there last night and Mr. Kelly is neglecting to mention the fact that Olmos did acknowledge that it became a big hit after theatres and did acknowledge that Harrison Ford made that movie what it was, but because of the expectations of Ford at the time of Blade Runner's release it was not a theatrical success. Also, this point was mentioned as an aside by Olmos to talk about how the feeling of Battlestar Galactica owes so much to Blade Runner and how BSG is really to a certain extent a continuation of that environment from BR. "Really putting the screws to Harrison Ford" is quite an exaggeration.

Reply

I caught BR on its opening day back in the 80s and it was visually stunning and completely unique from what was out at that time. But for the early 1980s it was quite violent and dark and movie goers just didnt get it.

Also the Siskel and Eberts of the time openly trashed the movie, saying it was horrible. Today they will tell you it is a fantastic film, but the truth is, back then it got horrible reviews. BR didn't really get widespread recognition until its Criterion Laserdisc release almost 10 years later.

Also, I would agree that it bombed in some degree due to Ford, but because he completely refused to do any promotion. He wont even talk about his experience with Ridley Scott or BR to this day. Kinda funny when you realize that it might actually be his best work.

Reply

I love Blade Runner. I was only about 15 when it came out and I'm sure I had to make one of my parents take me. I highly rec' the Paul Sammon book "Future Noir". Yes, I see what EJO is saying, but I guess I was the exception to the rule. At the time, I had a teen crush on Ford, but I also loved Sci-fi, so for me it was a beautiful dark combination of the 2.

Reply

Blade Runner 2 was never *on* the horizon, to use Kevin's phrase. Yes, today it's considered a classic by many (including me), and is undeniably one of the 10 (possibly 5) most influential science fiction films ever made... but in 1982 it was a complete commercial flop, plain and simple. No serious attempts at a filmed sequel were ever really considered.

Now, you can argue the various causes of this, but I'd have to say Olmos' call was on the money; clearly one of those causes was that Blade Runner was, at the time, about as far from "a typical Harrison Ford movie" as it's possible to get without actually not having Ford in it.

Now, I wasn't present for the BSG event (alas), I'm only reading the Olmos quotes reproduced here, but it's pretty plain to me that this is all Olmos was referring to. I don't get this childishness of, "ooh looky looky, the bad mans crapped all over the godliness that is Han Solo!" Clearly, that's not what happened, Kevin... so I recommend you put a bandaid over your stung feelings and ramp down the fanboy a little...

Reply

To say that Blade Runner would have had any sequels seems kind of silly when you think about the story. Where do you go with the story? Assuming you completely ignore the differences between the theatrical release vs the director's cut, think about what the plot would be for a sequel. Consider the source material, Philip K Dick's "Do Androids dream of Electric Sheep?" and while BR strayed from the novel they were both done at the end of the book/movie. What would the sequel have been about? Would it have been the further adventures of Deckard? Saying that BR was supposed to have sequels seems dumb to me because the sequels would most likely have been terrible and not really fit together well. BR just wasn't appreciated when it was released in the theaters. It's not the first time that has happened to a film.

Reply

Sorry, gotta join the crowd of those begging to differ with you Kevin. I was there as well and if memory serves EJO went on to describe Ford's performance in BR as "immaculate."

I saw an interview with Ford years ago where he admitted that his audience limits what he can be in. He talked about his disappointment when "Mosquito Coast" bombed. Apparently his character dies in the film--Ford fans don't like to see him die.

So, I agree with EJO, too. Ford's involvement did doom the film to box office "failure". Remember, this was a much bigger deal when the film was new--before the home video market really even existed.

I really think you're blowing this "bad blood" thing out of proportion. The guy only brought up BR because he wanted to acknowledge a debt to the film.

Reply

I hate that this story is being reported by everyone as if EJO is saying Harrison Ford was a bad actor and that's what ruined 'Blade Runner'. He's not actually BLAMING Ford for the movie failing... he clearly says that the audience wasn't ready to see Ford acting as anything other than Han Solo or Indiana Jones. That is in no way an indictment by Olmos of Ford. If anything he's laying the blame firmly at the feet of the fauning, mewling masses that weren't able to see beyond Ford's other big-screen roles.

Please, can the media stop sensationalizing this and making it seem as if Olmos just bitch-slapped Ford or something?

Reply

I'VE GOT IT! BR seeks out skinjobs and takes them to meastside, The last zone corporations don't control. Following the unicorn he heroricly restores meastside to its pre-corp heritage. Can't miss...

Anybody watched the BBC documentary on Blade Runner?

Reply