Shutter Island moved to 2010

Post Reply
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

There's also the possibility that The Lovely Bones was testing supremely well and they may want to throw their full force behind the film.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

I think the article hints at the reason for the move.

Paramount these days is a cheap studio. Its DVD releases are the worst in the business. They dropped The Dark Mirror and Johnny Guitar from their release schedule several years ago because they didn't think there was any money in old movies. More recently the only "classic" films they have released are recycled proven hits like Sunset Boulevard, A Place in the Sun and Roman Holdiay.

While they have already spent money on the film's ad campaign, an Oscar campaign for a film they probably don't feel could win would cost them more money they don't want to spend. They'd rather spend it on something that might have more traction with today's "hipper" Oscar voters, such as The Lovely Bones or the Reitman-Clooney movie.
rain Bard
Associate
Posts: 1611
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 6:55 pm
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Post by rain Bard »

These days, expectation of awards traction must surely factor into box office predictions from studios. It's chancey game to play, but if a film is going to make a strong profit without Oscar nominations, might a studio have incentive to remove it from eligibility, to better the chances of another of its releases picking up awards?

I'm not following the upcoming slate of hopefuls carefully enough to be able to answer this myself, but is it possible that one of the principals, or the studio itself, is afraid that the film, if released before year-end, might siphon votes from a more "important" Oscar campaign being waged this winter? Is this perhaps the first case of a studio film being postponed until the new year because it's "too good"?
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

I found this news exceedingly puzzling. First, as Damien says, they've been pushing the trailer like crazy -- I've seen it in front of every film I've seen the past month or two -- so the campaign they claim to want to bypass is already well underway. Besides, this, as I've tried to tell people based on reading the book, has never been a classic Oscar type movie. It could slip in under the new "ten rule", if, as studios no doubt hope, the extra spots go to commercial stuff. But in general terms, the film should, at peak, be hugely enjoyable trash, which fits October extremely well and would sell itself, not be dependent on an awards campaign.

As far as "it must suck", all the reports are saying it's testing real well. So I don't get this at all.
Zahveed
Associate
Posts: 1838
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:47 pm
Location: In Your Head
Contact:

Post by Zahveed »

Big Magilla wrote:Remember Gangs of New York?
Yea, I love that movie. I seem to be the only one on this board that does.
"It's the least most of us can do, but less of us will do more."
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Post by Okri »

Yeah, but doesn't Shutter Island remind people of Cape Fear before anything else. Could be a fun potboiler if one was in the right mood, but nothing more.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

Scorsese's been down this road before. Remember Gangs of New York? That one was crap, too, but it didn't stop the Academy from nominating it for a slew of Oscars.

It does sound like Paramount is burying it, though. If it were purely money they could still give it an Oscar run in N.Y. and L.A. for a week in December and roll it out wide in February after the holiday releases die down.
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

Sounds to me like the picture is complete crap. You don't bury a film in February, one that some were talking about as a serious awards contender, if it's any good.

So, scratch that one off this year's list and don't even bother listing it for next year.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Post by Damien »

Shit, I was already sick of the Shelter Island traailer from the few times I've been to a multi-plex, but now I'm gonna have to endure it when attending movies in December and January to catch up on Oscar contenders? God, I hate going to the movies.



Edited By Damien on 1250916469
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) – In an unexpected move, Paramount has pushed the domestic release date of the latest Martin Scorsese/Leonardo DiCaprio collaboration, "Shutter Island," from October 2 to February 19.

It is also moving the film's international rollout to February.

The move leaves the studio's fall slate devoid of high-profile releases, with the exception of writer-director Peter Jackson's "The Lovely Bones," adapted from the bestselling Alice Sebold novel. That film, which stars Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz, does not open until December 11.

"Our 2009 slate was green-lit in a very different economic climate and as a result we must remain flexible and willing to recalibrate and adapt to a changing environment," said Paramount Pictures Chairman and CEO Brad Grey in a statement.

"Martin Scorsese is not just one of the world's most significant filmmakers, but also a personal friend. Following a highly successful 2009, we have every confidence that 'Shutter Island' is a great anchor to lead off our 2010 slate, and the shift in date is the best decision for the film, the studio and ultimately (Paramount parent) Viacom."

Paramount has struggled through these fourth-quarter financial waters before. Late in 2008, the studio pushed the dramas "Defiance" and "The Soloist" from their fall, awards-season slots back to January and April, respectively. The ostensible reason then was a shortage of marketing funds in the 2008 budget that were then devoted to promoting the Christmas releases "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" and "Revolutionary Road."

Neither "Defiance" nor "Soloist" drummed up much box-office support when they finally hit theaters.

In that shake-out, DiCaprio ended up with a prime awards season slot for "Revolutionary," but little awards-season love. But in the current shift, he and Scorsese have lost the potential fall momentum that "Shutter" might have developed and are now relegated to February, from which few awards contenders emerge.

Given the financial squeeze, the hidden reason for the shift could be a wild card in the late-season landscape: writer-director Jason Reitman's "Up in the Air," co-written by Sheldon Turner. "Air," which premieres at the Toronto Film Festival in several weeks, has a tentative December 4 release date.

Early buzz on the movie, and star George Clooney's performance, is strong, so Paramount might be tempted to parlay whatever bounce the film gains in Toronto into an earlier fall release, with a push for awards recognition.

Meanwhile, after getting wind of the Paramount move, Fox Searchlight slid its Ellen Page/Drew Barrymore roller derby film, "Whip It!," into the October 2 slot that "Shutter" previously held, where its only competition will now be the Coen Bros.' "A Serious Man," also a Toronto premiere.

"Bones" and "Air" are both DreamWorks-developed properties, and neither is a guarantee in the awards or box-office race. In a return to his pre-"Lord of the Rings" mode, Jackson's film reportedly retains the dark, disturbing tone of the novel, about a young girl's rape and murder and its aftermath -- not exactly a Christmas crowd-pleaser.

"Air" is an adaptation of a below-the-radar Walter Kirn novel, about a corporate downsizing expert grappling with the state of his life and career. Its appeal is, however, similar to that of Reitman's debut, "Thank You for Smoking," which garnered the writer-director a good deal of awards consideration.
Post Reply

Return to “Other Oscar Discussions”