Reply to post: blade runner

2001 set the standard for the next 50 years of hard (and some soft) sci-fi

Nate Amsden

blade runner

Blade Runner 2049 released in 2017 did not do well in theaters according to wikipedia at least. It needed $400M to break even, and has done about $260M both according to the wikipedia article.

I like sci fi, though more specifically like space stuff, so am a fan of 2001 (though never really tried to understand the deeper bits, I was in it for the special effects which still hold up today as far as I'm concerned), and 2010(which I liked more, and understood better). Major fan of Star Trek (not the JJ abrams stuff), Stargate (the 3 TV series, SG1 probably favorite TV show all time -- wasn't into the original movie), and Star wars (more into the universe of star wars rather than the stories that have been told in the movies, loved Rogue One though - the latest Star wars didn't look interesting to me so I have skipped it).

Blade runner even though it was touted as having awesome special effects the previews and background didn't interest me so I haven't seen it. For some reason I kept tabs on wikipedia for Blade runner just to see how well it was doing to try to convince myself whether or not to see it.

2001 is a bit depressing in that it shows all this neat space stuff, and here we are 50 years later and doesn't seem we are anywhere close to any of it. At this rate it doesn't seem like we'll even be at 2001's level of space travel 50 years from now.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon