In a year where sci-fi sequels have been a mixed bag at the box office, Blade Runner 2049 stands as the antithesis to something like Star Wars: The Last Jedi. Met with near-universal praise by fans and critics alike, the follow-up to the 1982 Harrison Ford vehicle didn't impress at the box office, taking in $91 million domestically against a budget that is estimated to have surpassed $150 million. So, what went wrong? The original Blade Runner's director, Ridley Scott, offered up an explanation reported by Indiewire.

“It’s slow. It’s slow. Long. Too long. I would have taken out half an hour,” Scott said. The running time, which clocks in at two hours and forty-four minutes, was an aspect of the film that was criticized by many during the initial theatrical run and was even acknowledged by Villeneuve as a possible setback in getting non-Blade Runner fans excited about the project.

“I’m still digesting it,” Villeneuve said in an interview with Yahoo! Entertainment.. “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.”

Were you a fan of Blade Runner 2049? Did it suffer from being too long? Make sure you weigh in in the comments section.