It's too soon to brand 'Blade Runner: 2049' a flop

In a turn that has become all too commonplace in modern Hollywood, Blade Runner 2049 -- after just one weekend in theaters -- has already gone from highly anticipated and critically acclaimed follow-up to a cinematic classic to a so-called "box office disappointment." 

This narrative is especially damaging because far too many audiences interpret headlines like that as an indictment of a film's quality, even though Cinemascore found that audiences that did see the movie on opening weekend gave it a high A- average grade.

The same negative publicity nearly torpedoed another expensive decades in the making sequel -- Mad Max Fury Road. When that soon-to-be Oscar nominated classic open with 'just' $45 million back in 2015 (coming in second to the widely forgotten Pitch Perfect 2) it was viewed as costly failure, even though it displayed great legs, was hailed as one of the best films of the year and eventually was viewed as resounding commercial success too.

The same fate could still be in store for Blade Runner: 2049, despite its softer opening, it's a film that may draw repeat viewers and more discerning audiences which don't make their moviegoing choices purely based on the box office rat race.

It's sad that every weekend we are force fed a film's 'performance' as some indicator of whether a film succeeded or is worthy of seeing. Does anyone know what Citizen Kane grossed or whether it was one of the biggest hits of 1941, the year in which it was released?

Of course those familiar with the original Blade Runner are well aware of the fact that it was an enormous commercial flop when it came out in 1982.

And while it remains one of my all time favorite films of all time, in all its iterations, it is a slow, heady, moody noir film that never could have or would have broad mainstream appeal.

If anything, it's a tribute to the originality of the studio backing this film that they sunk $150 million into an ambitious sequel to a cult '80s film with niche appeal, with a star who has never anchored an action blockbuster (Ryan Gosling) and another who is 75 years old (Harrison Ford).

And, if the reviews are to be believed, the movie is a masterpiece, on par with the groundbreaking film that inspired it, so shouldn't it not matter how money it makes?

I for one haven't seen it yet -- I was at wedding out of the country during its opening weekend -- but i wouldn't miss it for the world, and can already imagine seeing it more than once, since for me this is the biggest cinematic event of the year outside of a little movie with Jedi in the title coming out in December.

Many of the movies I've loved, even worshipped, over the years weren't particularly profitable, got mixed reviews, and were not widely beloved -- and yet they're mostly considered unassailably great films now, because their greatness was recognized over time and had everything to do with quality and the quantity of money they made.

Don't see Blade Runner 2049 if you don't want to -- but don't skip it because you heard it's long or because it opened "below expectations."