You don't understand "doing well" is not about movie which makes the more money. Comparing it moonlight is stupid.

It's about being successful, Moonlight was a very successful movie, and success for a movie is measured basely on two things, one is the narrative surrounding the movie (critical reception, public reception etc) the other one is if the studio actually won or lose money with the movie.

Blade Runner was liked by critics and the public that saw it, but it was branded a failure because they lost money.


In the history of Best Picture Oscar's, you almost never have movies that generated losses for the studio, one of the main reason is that like someone else said here, the studios never push a unsuccessful movie, Oscar push cost money, and if you add to that that Blade Runner is a Science Fiction, a genre that never had much success with the Oscars, especially in the last 20 years, it's pretty obvious that Sony would never made the oscar push it deserved.



Another thing to take into account when reading Villeneuve's response, is that it is a response, someone asked him a question. He didn't make a twitter rant after hearing about it.

Also, he actually never talks about himself, so it's not about him wanting an oscar.

This article is pretty short. I read this one http://www.lapresse.ca/debats/chroniques/marc-cassivi/201801/23/01-5151202-les-lecons-de-denis-villeneuve.php (in French) and his comments don't sound childish at all. Like Max said and the article touches on that, the movie did not make back its production budget so the studio wasn't too inclined to push for it at the oscars.

I enjoyed 2049, but its not best picture worthy. Its also not his best work (Sicario and Prisoners).

Having said that, I would rather see 2049 in there in stead of Get Out, Post, Call Me or Phantom Thread.

Throw in Mollys Game and WFTPOTA for best picture too.

Moonlight cost 4M to make, and it made 55M: That is a smashing success at the box office.

It's not surprising. Most of the biggest box office flops have been sci-fi or comedy movies. They knew the risks, and what they were getting into. Same with the ones who did Valerian.

Nah, it was just a shitty movie trying to be “artistic” with a comic and cringy villain. Tried too hard.

I really enjoyed it. Easily my favourite film in years.
It had everything I could have asked for.
1. A multi-threaded plot where everything came together in a very meaningful way.
2. Not an ultra-dumbed-up over-simplified producer formula flick like that somewhere in the realm of 95% of films out there nowadays.
3. Emotion provoking visuals.
4. Depth in rich amounts of subtleties.
5. First film in a long time which stylistically reminds me of Vertigo (although in a Cyberpunk future!)

In short. A lot of films these days reek of producer enforced checklists. No depth, no subtitles. Everything has to be on the nose. The same basic three act plot structures and mechanics used over and over and over again. Plot lines and all themes are forced by producers to be so on the nose that everything with a 10M+ budget is basically a PG or R rated childrens’ film these days. Blade Runner is the piece of art that flips the bird to that trend, and it’s very refreshing and unique.

It manages to be a faithful sequel to the original, while not retreading the plot of it, or relying on the original. It also manages deeper levels of plot, with multiple threads and themes going through each scene. It expands Philip K Dick’s Blade Runner universe a great deal on top of all of that. Also, as a sequel, it made me appreciate the original
in an entirely new way. It also had one of my favourite sub-plots ever in a film, how it ties so perfectly into K’s existential crisis.

These are the sorts of gems I look out for.