If studios someday show guts like they did in '82....

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

.....then, God willing, we will once again someday see TWO classic sci-films open on the same day.
Happy 30th birthday to BLADE RUNNER and John Carpenter's THE THING.

 

[MacLeod]

Well Blade Runner was a flop when it first came out. Sure it might have made it's money know 30 years later. But Studios tend to look at short term return on Investment.

 

[Harvey]

John Carpenter's The Thing was a flop when it came out, too. It had a gross of $19.6 million against a production budget of $15 million. The initial reviews weren't great either, apparently.

Now both films are revered as classics. Time is a funny thing.

 

[the G-man]

Yeah. Maybe "guts" isn't quite the right word when you consider that both movies disappointed at the box office.

 

[sojourner]

So, it doesn't take guts to make 2 movies that weren't box office successes? I'd say that definitely took guts.

 

[MacLeod]

Whilst those two films are considered Classics today, they weren't when they first came out.

Sudios do occasioanl take gambles, when it first came out Cameron's "Titanic" was the most expensive move made. As cost rose, I suspect the studio execs began to worry about not seeing a return.

Studios sometimes play follow the leader, so Studio A releases say a Super hero film (when super hero films weren't being made) it's a great success, so Studios B, C & D all release them. Eventually the gamble by studio A is forgotton.

 

[the G-man]

So, it doesn't take guts to make 2 movies that weren't box office successes? I'd say that definitely took guts.

First off, neither movie was an obvious risky move.

The Thing was from John Carpenter, at his height of popularity as a horror/action director, and reunited him with his Escape from NY star.

Blade Runner was directed by the director of Alien, starring one if the biggest box office stars around.

But more to the point, the original poster said it took guts, not to make the movies, but for the studios to release them the same day. Given that neither did well at the box office, despite sci-fi movies being hot at the time and despite the quality and pedigree of each film, would seem to suggest the 'two sci fi films on the same date' was less a gutsy move and more a foolish one.

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

.....then, God willing, we will once again someday see TWO classic sci-films open on the same day.
Happy 30th birthday to BLADE RUNNER and John Carpenter's THE THING.

That must mean that 30 years and one week ago was when ET was released...

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

And TREK II and POLTERGEIST a few weeks before.......and TRON a bit later (not that it's in the same league as the others). 1982 was probably the peak of sci-fi films. Then after the PREDATOR-ROBOCOP era of '87, it seemed to peter out greatly. Maybe the increasing action films stole their thunder. Some say the Marvel movies are petering out the ''pure'' action films now.

BLADE RUNNER was given thumbs down by a bunch of famous critics then...almost as much as THE THING. But they're downplaying their original opinions now. Back then extra critical support could have boosted its box office, even though E.T. was pretty much unstoppable.

 

[Pingfah]

What would be good about 2 big sci-fi films opening on the same day?

It would just be a stupid marketing strategy, there would be nothing particularly desirable about it from the consumer POV.

 

[Redfern]

Not a great movie by any means, but '82 also gave us "Cat People" a lurid and highly Freudian reinterpretation of a 1942 noir thriller. Probably sparked an entire generation of "furries". (I know, "pot calling kettle...") At least we got a cool song by David Bowie from it.

Sincerely,

Bill

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

''What would be good about 2 big sci-fi films opening on the same day?''---Pingfah

If they were as good as BLADE RUNNER and THE THING, what wouldn't be? That's not to say they'd be guaranteed blockbusters, but real sci-fi buffs could spare four hours for higher quality on one weekend.

With the exception of Christmas, big-budget US films are almost always one action/drama, one comedy and perhaps one animated nearly every single week. The more films you see per year, it's more apparent. Collectively, it can get boring, or at least predictable.

Before the mid-90s major studios had more output and greater variety. You occasionally got 3 or even four dramas or thrillers in a week, even during summertime. It wasn't unheard of to get two classics in one week. Nowadays, it's almost predetermined which movie gets to be number one. Animated and action movies have the general edge. And I miss the suspense of the past.....

 

[Temis the Vorta]

The fact that the two movies cited by the OP were flops is all the explanation needed why studios no longer show any "guts."

As the movie business globalizes, everything has trended away from originality and daring, and towards a boring beige bland homogenization that offends no one and is comprehensible to all. I see nothing on the horizon that's going to reverse this trend.

Movies are done. Cable TV is the place for interesting storytelling now.

 

[Captaindemotion]

As a parent of two small children, I've just about gotten round to seeing Avengers and I haven't yet seen Prometheus. I'm already having to make plans as to how and when to see Amazing Spider-man and Dark Knight Rises. I'd be majorly pissed off if all or any of these opened on the same day.

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

Which is why they open on weekends.

I remember RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK and SUPERMAN II opened either very close to each other and possibly on the same day. IMDB can verify that, of course. Both movies did very well. But no studio wants to be second place, unless they have counterprogramming.

And I'd say there are more than enough multiplexes to handle a simultaneous release of DARK KNIGHT RISES and AMAZING SPIDER-MAN. Batman will almost certainly do better as he doesn't dance, but I can't see 3-D Spidey doing poorly either. So I say try it once and see what happens.

 

[MacLeod]

Well these days, studios tend not to schedule their major release to open on the same day as another studios major release.

As for opening day, on the rare occasions that I visit the cinema it's usually 2-3 weeks after the release date. The cinema tends to be quiter and I can enjoy the film with fewer distractions.

 

[Harvey]

Well these days, studios tend not to schedule their major release to open on the same day as another studios major release.

That's a result of the high concept blockbuster economy, and why Hollywood studios will never release films like they did in the early 1980s. With studios relying on fewer and fewer films that are more and more expensive they need to be able to dominate the weekend (and, if possible, the following weekend).

Releases of big films like these are saturated and heavily advertised -- which means the vast majority of their box office, unless they become a major hit, is earned in the first week. Studios can't afford to split the box office with another movie, which is why you see films like The Bourne Legacy being delayed a week. Universal doesn't want to lose out on potential box office receipts because of Warner Bros.' The Dark Knight.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

.....then, God willing, we will once again someday see TWO classic sci-films open on the same day.

That's not "guts;" that's the stupidity of career suicide being committed.

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

Stupidity is our only option. How will we get classic films otherwise? Number One films are so boring for the most part.

 

[Harvey]

Occasionally a blockbuster will rise to the top; otherwise, wait until fall. That's the way Hollywood studios do business these days. There aren't many other options, really. Even most "independent" distributors are connected to the majors, and in the U.S., the majors distribute a lot of foreign films, too.