When Ridley Scott’s turgid sci-fi odyssey, “Blade Runner,” hit theaters in 1982, it notoriously flopped. Despite striking, groundbreaking visuals and an appealing dystopian setting bordering on film noir, audiences stayed away en masse, perhaps put off by its slow pace, uninvolving characterizations, and ambiguous ending. With a rather hefty budget of $30 million, “Blade Runner” only grossed $41 million at the box office.
In the years that followed, however, people began flocking to “Blade Runner” on home video. The film developed a cult following, then eventually reached mainstream audiences. By 1992, there was enough interest to warrant a director, and Ridley Scott created a 116-minute cut that remains the standard to this day. “Blade Runner” sets the future of 2019 when human-like androids, called Replicants, have proliferated in the public. However, these replicators sometimes go rogue, requiring a special assassin – a blade runner – to track them down and “take them out”. Harrison Ford plays Rick Deckard, the main character, who must find a pair of Replicants played by Rutger Hauer and Darryl Hannah.
The film was extrapolated from the 1968 novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” by seminal science fiction author Philip K. Dick. The book and the film are very different in both story and tone, so one wonders what Dick thought of Scott’s film. Thanks to a 1981 letter Dick wrote to a Warner Bros. executive. (printed on the author’s website), we know his thoughts. Or rather his speculations. Dick, it should be noted, died a few months before “Blade Runner” was released in 1982, but he saw a television report about the film’s production and was impressed. He believed that Scott’s film had the potential to change the science fiction genre forever.
Philip K. Dick Didn’t See Blade Runner, But He Felt It Had Potential
The letter in question was written to Jeff Walker, an executive at Ladd. Dick noted in the letter that he had seen a report titled “Hooray for Hollywood,” which featured behind-the-scenes interviews with the cast and crew of “Blade Runner.” Dick was moved by the report, and was particularly impressed by something Harrison Ford had said about the “Blade Runner” genre, writing:
“…[A]fter listening to Harrison Ford discuss the film, I came to the conclusion that it was indeed not science fiction; it is not fantasy; It’s exactly what Harrison said: futurism. The impact of ‘Blade Runner’ is simply going to be enormous, both on audiences and on creators – and, I believe, on science fiction as a field.”
High praise indeed. Because Dick hasn’t seen the final film, he couldn’t comment on changes made to the film from his original novel, but he was so blown away by the visuals of Scott’s next feature that he already knew it would be a big deal. Dick, it seems, was not a fan of modern science fiction, feeling it too evasive. “Blade Runner” would change that. As he wrote:
“As someone who has been writing and selling science fiction for thirty years, this is of some importance to me. In all honesty, I must say that our field has been gradually and steadily deteriorating in recent years. Nothing we have done, individually or collectively, has matched “Blade Runner.” It’s not escapism; it’s super-realism, so realistic, so detailed, so authentic and so compelling that, well, after the segment, I found my “normal” reality today pale in comparison.”
Imagine if he had seen the film!
Philip K. Dick thought Blade Runner could save the science fiction genre
Dick continued his effusive praise, telling Jeff Walker that he and his team had established what he considered “a new form of artistic expression, never seen before.” He said “Blade Runner” had the potential to revolutionize the genre.
According to Dick, science fiction certainly needed a revolution. He summarized his letter by saying that science fiction “has slowly and inevitably settled into a monotonous death: it has become inbred, derivative, obsolete.” It doesn’t mention “Star Wars” by name, but that seems to be the implication. By 1982, science fiction had become familiar and uninspired. Dick noted that he was flattered that one of his own worlds could inspire such potential cinematic greatness. “My life and creative work,” he wrote enthusiastically, “are justified and complemented by ‘Blade Runner.’ Thank you…and it’s going to be one hell of a commercial success. It will prove invincible.”
Fortunately, Dick didn’t see the “Blade Runner” tank at the box office. But he also hasn’t been able to see his audience rebuild over time. Dick was wrong that “Blade Runner” was a hell of a commercial success, but he was right that it would prove invincible. The visuals of “Blade Runner” became a new standard for science fiction films, and its production design remains a turning point in cinema. Indeed, the film attracted such a massive audience that Ford returned for a sequel, “Blade Runner 2049,” in 2017. Denis Villeneuve directed that film, and he attempted to match Scott’s production design in his own language. Many believe he succeeded. The legacy of “Blade Runner” lives on.
