Emily Blunt Says Algorithms “Frustrate Me”: “I Hate That F*cking Word, Excuse The Expletive!”

Emily Blunt isn’t a fan of algorithm-driven cinema. Variety reports (via Vanity Fair Italy) that the actress and her “The Fall Guy” co-star Ryan Gosling are against studios letting data-crunching drive their creative choices. And Blunt thinks “Oppenheimer” is a good example of something an algorithm wouldn’t want to make, despite it being a box-office success and a huge Oscar winner.

READ MORE: ‘The Fall Guy’ Review: An Exuberant, Kinetic But Sometimes Underwritten Love Letter To The Stunt Industry [SXSW]

“Some new things frustrate me: algorithms, for example,” Blunt told the magazine. “I hate that f*cking word, excuse the expletive! How can it be associated with art and content? How can we let it determine what will be successful and what will not?” She continued, “Let me explain with an example. I was in a three-hour film about a physicist, which had the impact that it had – the algorithms probably wouldn’t have grasped it. My hope is that “Oppenheimer” and similar projects are not considered anomalies, that we stop translating creative experience into diagrams.”

Gosling then backed up Blunt’s point.  “You can’t beat an algorithm at its job,” the actor explained.  “And this, paradoxically, forces me to be more human, to choose ‘handmade’ projects like “The Fall Guy,” which is based on personal experiences, our footprints and our stories, which we poured into the characters.”  Now, granted, “The Fall Guy” and “Oppenheimer” are very different movies: a big-budget action remake of an ’80s TV show and a drama with an original screenplay. But Gosling’s point stands. As far as everyone knows, Drew Pearce adapted Glen A. Larson‘s original concept for “The Fall Guy” into a feature script, with no algorithms involved whatsoever.

But”The Fall Guy” isn’t as good an example of “anti-algorithm” cinema as “Oppenheimer.”  Christopher Nolan‘s latest defied expectations on all fronts, taking in $960 million at the global box office and becoming one of the highest-grossing R-rated films in motion picture history. And did anyone at Universal expect “Oppenheimer” to win so many Oscars, including Best Picture? Not even the tightest data-crunching could have predicted that film’s success, whereas “The Fall Guy” will likely not shock everyone and be one of 2024’s runaway successes. But who’s to say? Maybe “The Fall Guy” will prove to be just as “handmade” as “Oppenheimer” before the year is out.

Blunt and Gosling’s talk of algorithms comes on the heels of “A Knight’s Tale” director Brian Helgeland revealing that data-crunching led Netflix to shoot down a potential sequel to his 2001 film. “I pitched it to Sony because they own the rights, and it seemed like they were interested in making it with Netflix, releasing it as a Netflix movie,” Helgeland told Inverse. “My understanding is that Netflix tested this sequel idea through their algorithms, which indicated that it would not be successful. “A Knight’s Tale” seems to get more popular with every passing year; it’s the strangest thing.”

Is Netflix’s use of algorithms in this case right or wrong?  On the one hand, “A Knight’s Tale” is an enduring cult classic.  But on the other hand, it’s over two decades old, its lead tragically passed away over fifteen years ago, and a flimsy sequel could tarnish the original movie’s legacy. Is it ethical or not for Netflix to let data-crunching determine if a movie is worth making? Or is this an example of an algorithm saying what execs guts already know: that “A Knight’s Tale 2” may not be as good an idea as Helgeland thinks it is.

Debates like this will rage as data-driven creative choices become more normalized in Hollywood. And if “The Fall Guy” makes as much money as “Oppenheimer” did last year, who knows? Maybe Universal execs will divine whether a sequel is worth making by having algorithms give them the answer. What would Blunt and Gosling have to say about that?

“The Fall Guy” hits theaters everywhere on May 3