Ridley Scott's classic sci-fi actioner Blade Runner created a futuristic dystopia in which humans and replicants (a.k.a. synthetic humanoids) fight for their personhood -- a world and moral question that's endured for decades. Since its 1982 debut, a growing fanbase has watched the original movie spawn an ever-expanding franchise. Filmmakers have made several spin-off shorts, Blade Runner Black Out 2022, 2036: Nexus Dawn, and 2048: Nowhere to Run, that further lay out the universe's lore. They also made the offshoot animated series Blade Runner: Black Lotus, as well as started developing an upcoming limited series on Prime Video called Blade Runner 2099. However, its biggest sequel installment in the saga so far is the film, Blade Runner 2049.
The 2017 epic continued the original story 30 years later, with Harrison Ford reprising his iconic role as Rick Deckard, a former replicant hunter, and Ryan Gosling as the newly-introduced blade runner, K. Scott acted as an executive producer on the film, but the director gig went to Denis Villeneuve, who's since become a household name for his Dune film adaptations. Blade Runner 2049 received plenty of praise after its release. However, much like its 1980s predecessor, it did not do well at the box office. While Villeneuve isn't sure about why it flopped, Scott hasn't been shy about his theory.
Your Rating close 10 stars 9 stars 8 stars 7 stars 6 stars 5 stars 4 stars 3 stars 2 stars 1 star Rate Now 0/10 Blade Runner 2049 R Sci-Fi Action Drama Mystery 9.6/10 Release Date October 6, 2017 Runtime 163 Minutes Director Denis Villeneuve Writers Michael Green, Hampton Fancher Prequel(s) Blade Runner Cast See All Ryan Gosling Harrison Ford
Franchise(s) Blade Runner Powered by Expand Collapse 'Blade Runner 2049's Failure is a Mystery to Denis Villeneuve Close
Denis Villeneuve has more than proven himself as one of the top directors of his generation, and Blade Runner 2049 isn't an exception in his impressive body of work. It was praised by critics and fans alike, ranking it as one of the best films of 2017, and giving it an 88% on Rotten Tomatoes. However, even with its success on paper, the film did not perform to expectations at the box office. Although it earned over $258 million worldwide, the cost of making, marketing, and distributing it stained it as a financial failure.
While Denis Villeneuve has some ideas about what happened, he isn't entirely sure what's to blame for the loss. During an interview with Yahoo Entertainment, he expressed his confusion as well as offered up his theories, "I'm still digesting it. It had the best [reviews] of my life. I never had a movie welcomed like that. At the same time, the box office in the United States was a disappointment, that's the truth, because those movies are expensive. It will still make tons of money, but not enough. The thing I think is that, it was maybe because people were not familiar enough with the universe. And the fact the movie's long. I don't know, it's still a mystery to me."
So, for Villeneuve, it appears as though it was a combination of factors that resulted in a box office bomb, but he isn't entirely certain of the main cause (if there is one). The movie is incredibly well done on top of being visually stunning, but it seems there just wasn't enough excitement for a nearly three-hour sequel after 30 years to make up for its costs.
Related Harrison Ford's 2 Sci-Fi Movies Outside Star Wars & Blade Runner Were Utter Disasters
Ford only made two sci-fi films outside the 'Star Wars' and 'Blade Runner' franchises, and they both bombed.
Posts Ridley Scott Blames the Runtime Close
Even if Villeneuve thinks Blade Runner 2049's poor box office return isn't clear, Ridley Scott disagrees. The Blade Runner director stepped down into a producer role for the sequel, and he's been candid about his involvement in the film as well as his frustrations with its runtime. During an interview with Al Arabiya, he gushed about how good the movie was, but also confessed what he'd have changed if he was at the helm, "It's slow. It's slow. Long. Too long. I would have taken out half an hour."
Blade Runner 2049's theatrical release runs at two hours 32 minutes (its first cut was around four hours), while Scott's original has a runtime of one hour 50 minutes. Regardless of fan dedication to studios like Marvel and DC, which regularly pump out movies of this length to ample box office profit, those franchises are much more established and popular in the modern age of film. So, Scott's perspective is likely correct in part, but it leaves out the why.
Blade Runner 2049 is too long because it didn't have the steady fanbase to back up its costs. Additionally, the original Blade Runner was a box office failure too, before it eventually became a cult classic. Considering the movie is a lot shorter than its sequel, perhaps film installments into the Blade Runner universe are just generally too expensive compared to the lack of profit they repeatedly bring in.
Related Michelle Yeoh to Star in Blade Runner 2099 Limited Series for Prime Video
The Academy Award-winning actress will star in the next installment of the Blade Runner franchise, which sees Ridley Scott return as producer.
Posts Would Cutting 30 Minutes Have Saved 'Blade Runner 2049'? Close
Scott believes that some hefty editing to trim down Blade Runner 2049 would have made all the difference in its profits. On a practical level, such a simple move would have let theaters squeeze in more showings, ultimately allowing for more ticket sales, which is a major consideration for these kinds of big-budget movies.
Additionally, when it comes to pacing, if Villeneuve had removed a half-hour from the film (in the right spots, of course), it would have not only made it less of a time commitment for audiences, but it could have also improved some reviews that found it boring. Thus, a shorter runtime may have directly enticed viewers by making it generally easier to sit through. Plus, it's a dated franchise, so small cuts to get both new and old audiences in the theater door are essential.
However, no one knows for sure if a shorter Blade Runner 2049 would have been more commercially successful. While there are plenty of valid arguments, from Scott or otherwise, that suggest it was just too long, its funders may have just overestimated the franchise's popularity when establishing its budget.