Blade Runner 2049 has flopped at the box office – here are six reasons why

Blade Runner has become such a cinematic favourite that there was nervousness around a sequel from the camp of those who loved Ridley Scott's original. But over the past 30 years, some have forgotten that the futuristic film was never a hit at the box office.

If anything, Blade Runner was a flop. It cost $28 million, but took a piffling $6 million during its opening weekend in 1982. Even now, with re-releases, Blade Runner has only just broken even, taking $33.7 million in total.

This weekend, history somewhat repeated itself. Blade Runner 2049, the Dennis Villeneuve-directed remake that Scott executive produced, has gleaned a mere $31.5 million during its opening weekend, despite having a budget of $150 million. As a percentage, that's even slightly worse that its predecessor. 

Blade Runner 2049 has an impressive creative team and a stellar cast, including Blade Runner original Harrison Ford and Ryan Gosling. The critics have universally adored it. So what went wrong? Here are some of the reasons why more people haven't been to see it. 

1. It's a very long film

Basic, but true. Blade Runner 2049 runs for nearly three hours, which is a considerable chunk of an evening to spend in a cinema – especially if you consider the additional costs of food, parking and babysitting.

Furthermore, longer films take up more of a cinema's screening schedule, so there are fewer opportunities for people to go and see it.

For the casual Saturday night viewer, those with a shorter run time would be far more appealing. The fact that Christopher Nolan – not known for his brevity – has found his greatest success with 90-minute-long Dunkirk, is telling.

2. It's been a while since the original Blade Runner came out

Blade Runner 2049 is a clear sequel to Scott's classic. While many people have watched the film since it bombed back in the Eighties, there are plenty who will need a refresher. To those who haven't seen it, the pertinence of Blade Runner 2049 will be less keenly felt, or they're faced with a bit of film homework before they head to the cinema.

As one person pointed out on Reddit: "The problem is that watching both takes five hours of time and that is not something that a lot of people are willing to do."

The numbers back this up: far fewer millennials, who hadn't been born when Blade Runner was released, went to see the film that those who had watched it first time around.

The Wrap reports that 63 per cent of those who saw Blade Runner 2049 this weekend were over the age of 35, while only 14 per cent were under the age of 25.

3. And Blade Runner 2049 didn't offer much to the uninitiated

Blade Runner was already based on a complicated futuristic concept, but Blade Runner 2049 did little to encourage those who had little knowledge of the film. A keenness to keep the plot quiet – distributor Alcon were so draconian that early reviewers weren't allowed to detail what actually happened in the film –meant that few nuggets were thrown out to pique interest ahead of the release, meaning that what happened in Blade Runner 2049 remained oblique for new viewers. 

Other franchises have managed to introduce new films without making viewers feel as if they had to see the original – take the blockbusting Mad Max: Fury Road, which was essentially a critically acclaimed, hours-long car chase, or Prometheus, which stood alone from the earlier Alien films. Blade Runner hasn't managed to do the same.

4. Blade Runner found an unlikely rival

Remember how everyone was quietly astonished at the runaway success of Stephen King adaptation It? And how the film took on a life of its own, with creepy clowns appearing in cinemas and absent floating balloons in everyday places?

Some of those $603.7 million probably would have gone into Blade Runner 2049's pocket had the horror movie not been released few weeks before and stolen its thunder. For those occasional cinema-goers, It would have taken up that month's trip to the movies. 

5. Nobody really turns out for Harrison Ford or Ryan Gosling

They're big names, sure, and adored by the chattering classes who enjoy dissecting films on social media. However, Ford and Gosling have a poor track history when it comes to leading films that underwhelm at the box office.

After La La Land, which was helped along by Oscars speculation and Emma Stone, Gosling's next-highest-earning film was Crazy Stupid Love, which he appeared in alongside Steve Carrell, Juliane Moore and, erm, Stone. 

Ford, aside from Star Wars, hasn't seen the box office heights of his Indiana Jones days for a while; 2000, to be precise, when horror What Lies Beneath lured in just shy of $30 million. In short: few people are coming out for Blade Runner because of these two.

6. And where are all the women?

If all of the above hadn't suggested that Blade Runner was indeed the preserve of sci-fi cinefiles, then the noticeable absence of women in Blade Runner 2049 won't have helped its case.

There is no leading female character, Robyn Wright fulfils a tired archetype and the woman with the most lines is a hologram who purely exists to satisfy men.

Not only does this alienate approximately half of the potential cinema-going audience, but it's earned Blade Runner 2049 bad press, which won't have had people rushing to the cinema either.