Alex Garland Talks ‘Annihilation’ Test Screening Controversy: “I Don’t Really Give A S—”

The journey of Alex Garland‘s “Annihilation” to the big screen has been somewhat rocky thanks to internal wrangling at Paramount. Late last year, it was reported that  David Ellison, the head of Skydance Productions, found the picture to be “too intellectual” and “too complicated.” following poor test screening results. A request was made to Garland change the film’s ending, and reshape of the portrayal of Natalie Portman‘s character, but co-producer Scott Rudin, who had final cut on the movie, allowed the director to deliver the picture he intended. Perhaps wary of having a box office flop on their hands, Paramount sold off the film’s international rights to Netflix, with “Annihilation” only getting a big screen release in the U.S., Canada, and China.

Well, the movie is landing in cinemas this weekend, and Paramount might have a bit of egg on their face. “Annihilation” has received ecstatic reviews, and could be another sci-fi break out hit and future classic like Garland’s previous film, “Ex Machina.” Both Ellison and Rudin have denied there was a battle over the picture, and Paramount maintains they made the deal to give “Annihilation” the best possible international exposure (by giving it to a rival? I guess….) but Garland could frankly care less if his movie tested poorly, and defends the notion that his movie is too brainy.

“I don’t really give a s–t,” he told The Toronto Star. “I don’t believe in it, as a bit of phrasing, nor do I actually think the film is very intellectual. I think it’s quite intuitive. There’s a requirement to have an open mind, I think, but that in itself is not intellectual.”

Speaking with The Wall Street Journal, the filmmaker acknowledges the conversation that preceded the release of “Annihilation,” but at the same time, doesn’t put much stock in test screening results.

“We’ve got a shitload of problems with this film, right? A shitload. I love the film, I stand by it, but I understand the problems,” he said.

“It’s ‘What do you do with a film that costs this much that tests the way this tests?’ ” he continued. “Did we test brilliantly? No, we didn’t. Is that dangerous waters? If it is, I couldn’t give a f— because it’s so self-evident. For anybody who understands testing, it’s not a surprise.”

Moreover, Garland adds that “Ex Machina” didn’t test well either: “No. F— no. Nothing I’ve done has come close to testing well.”

Nonetheless, many of us might be wondering how Paramount could suddenly get cold feed when they know exactly the kind of script and director they were working with. There’s no clear answer, but Garland says he was completely upfront about his vision.

“When it says it in the script, it’s like a contract—that is what I’m going to do,” he said. “Now, listen, at the end of the day, is that difficult for the people making it and for the studio? Yeah, it’s really f—ing hard. It was difficult to make, and it’ll be difficult to sell. I’ve been working in film long enough to know that if I wrote this script and we tried to make it, I knew where that would lead. I wasn’t under any illusions. Sure enough, that’s where it led.”

“Annihilation” opens today, and if you care about seeing smart sci-fi on the big screen, go buy a ticket.