The one movie Denis Villeneuve would never make again: “We had made a monster”

Denis Villeneuve’s Blade Runner 2049 won two Academy Awards, was nominated for three more, and was otherwise incredibly critically acclaimed. Despite having the big boots of Ridley Scott’s original to fill, it also able to please most fans due to its incredible world-building and Roger Deakins’ epic cinematography, even managing to do well with some audiences who didn’t fare well with the original. 

But despite all its acclaim, Villeneuve told The Telegraph that “it would not be a good idea for me to make a movie like that twice” and claimed that once it was released, the team had realised “we had made a monster”. Yet, none of this criticism from the movie’s director is due to his dislike of the final product or a lack of faith in his vision. No, they’re due to the massive box office flop the film managed to become.

Blade Runner 2049 has often been cited as one of the biggest box-office flops in recent history despite being highly acclaimed and adored by fans. Its stunning visuals, compelling storytelling, and critical praise raised questions about why such a spectacular film struggled to find commercial success.

Ridley Scott also gave his two cents at the time, remarking that the film was too slow and that if it had been his choice, he would have shaved another 30 minutes off the run time. At two hours and 43 minutes, the film is long for a blockbuster, but Villeneuve had already cut it down from his original four-hour version. At this point, he felt he couldn’t cut anything else without risking the integrity of his creation. 

However, upon its release, the filmmaker realised he might be in for trouble, as he recalls one of his producers exclaiming, “We’ve just made the most expensive art house movie in cinema history.” The bubble of making the film had finally popped, and the viewers simply didn’t show up en masse at the box office. Its run time discouraged certain cinema-goers and made it more difficult for theatres to have quite as many showings. 

After grossing a measly $91million in the US and Canada against a $185m budget, it was Europe that just about managed to “save [Villeneuve’s] ass”. Typically receiving arthouse much more enthusiastically than their American counterparts, the Europeans and other territories managed to bring the figure up to $267m. However, the production company Alcon Entertainment was still estimated to have lost around $80m. 

So, it’s no wonder Villeneuve never wants to make such a misstep – it’s hard to call something as beautiful and introspective as Blade Runner 2049 a mistake – again. And it’s safe to say, after the unbelievable success of his adaptation of Frank Herbert’s Dune, that he hasn’t so far. The first installment of the trilogy costs nearly $500m, while the second installment is worth nearly $700m and is still climbing. 

But it’s unfortunate that such creative and unique tellings of familiar stories might be lost due to the need to make such returns for studios and a lack of audience attention. While it’s understandable Villeneuve wants to ensure he never puts himself in the position to cost a studio that much again, I’m sure most would agree that they’d love to see a project as big and risk-taking as Blade Runner 2049 made in the future.

Related Topics

This post was originally published on here