criterionforum.org

That's a relief.

Spring of 2011 or LATER?!

I realize film is a business, but seriously, fuck this bullshit. And fuck the Oscars, I mean, c'mon.

Here's MY release plan for the film, Fox Searchlight: I find a girl, court her, marry her, get her pregnant, raise the child for about ten years, hope the child gets terminal cancer, utilize the "Make-A-Wish" Foundation to request a screening of Tree of Life (which will, no doubt, still be unreleased at that point) because she has a crush on Brad Pitt. We both die from happiness, and the film wins no Oscars anyway.

Well, shit. I'm still holding out a tiny bit of hope that it will be very early in 2011 with a tiny qualifying run at one theater in New York and L.A. beginning on December 31. That way, I could at least hope to see it hit Denver by the end of February.

This is bullshit. Fuck America!

Terry Malick waiting for a distributor to set a date for his finished film.

Strange days.

](*,) This sucks.

This is an unpopular opinion, but I'd rather see it next year with a company like Searchlight behind it that will give it good distribution than see it released this year by a company that would end up falling apart anyway.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:This is an unpopular opinion, but I'd rather see it next year with a company like Searchlight behind it that will give it good distribution than see it released this year by a company that would end up falling apart anyway.

I think most people were hoping for option three: a release this year from a company that will give it good distribution.

Fox Searchlight are very capable, and I trust them a lot more with this film than I would Sony Pictures Classics, but it seems that this film is only being held back because of their already full Awards season slate. After all this waiting, it hurts that it might not be released for another year, especially since it's actually finished.

I think what it's down to is the timing of the acquisition. It's already September, and I can't imagine even a huge corporation like Fox putting together promotion for potential Oscar bait out of scratch. I'll admit it's frustrating to potentially wait another year for a film that's already in the can, but I understand why given the circumstances.

Huh? Malick is also in development on a Jerry Lee Lewis movie with Brad Pitt and Natalie Portman? Could this much activity be possible?

http://criterioncast.com/2010/09/09/nat ... is-biopic/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I hate to get all mushy yet again about Wes Anderson, but that's quite the striking, beautiful still. Forgot how many nice images there are in Hotel Chevalier.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:Fox Searchlight are very capable, and I trust them a lot more with this film than I would Sony Pictures Classics...

I'm not sure I understand... "trust" them to do what? Every distributor is fully capable of, you know, manufacturing prints and sending them to theaters for you to watch. Why exactly is SPC "untrustworthy"?

Back in the 1980s, Malick wrote a script for what eventually (without Malick's participation) became Jim McBride's Great Balls of Fire (you know, the one with Winona Ryder as Lewis's child bride). Presumably he's taken that out of mothballs?

Hoping this is just another rumor, or another project that will come to nothing -- Portman is a horrible actress.

TedW wrote:

flyonthewall2983 wrote:Fox Searchlight are very capable, and I trust them a lot more with this film than I would Sony Pictures Classics...

I'm not sure I understand... "trust" them to do what? Every distributor is fully capable of, you know, manufacturing prints and sending them to theaters for you to watch. Why exactly is SPC "untrustworthy"?

Selling the film. Getting it into theatres. I think SPC have more integrity, but Fox Searchlight are great at aggressive marketing. They're probably the best bet for making sure this doesn't become another The New World.

jonah.77 wrote:Portman is a horrible actress.

Really? I hope Black Swan changes your opinion.

Cde. wrote:Selling the film. Getting it into theatres. I think SPC have more integrity, but Fox Searchlight are great at aggressive marketing. They're probably the best bet for making sure this doesn't become another The New World.

As I said, any one of these guys can "get it into theatres." As far as selling it, what difference does that make, really? I gathered from the tone of this thread was that everybody was kind of past that notion of commercial success; perhaps I was wrong. But if you think a new Malick film, about "the sweep of life" or whatever, at this point in history, is going to make any kind of a serious dent at the box office, then I don't know what to tell you. Aggressive marketing or not. I haven't seen the movie, but my educated guess is it ain't no Slumdog Millionaire. And The New World performed how it did because, well... have you seen the movie? Does it strike you in any way as some mass-audience crowd-pleaser?

My point is, it doesn't really matter who releases it. As long as it gets released. It'll do what it's going to do. (Not much, is my bet.)

perkizitore wrote:

jonah.77 wrote:Portman is a horrible actress.

Really? I hope Black Swan changes your opinion.

I doubt it will for me. I don't think she's horrible, just paper-thin. Not much there beyond her being exceptionally cute. I've seen much of her screen work and saw her onstage doing The Seagull with Streep, P.S. Hoffman, Kevin Kline, et. al, directed by Mike Nichols. About the best chance you're gonna get as an actor to be good... and she got swallowed up.

But hey, she kisses a girl in it, so they got my ten bucks. Very wise, Mr. Aronofsky...

TedW wrote:

Cde. wrote:Selling the film. Getting it into theatres. I think SPC have more integrity, but Fox Searchlight are great at aggressive marketing. They're probably the best bet for making sure this doesn't become another The New World.

As I said, any one of these guys can "get it into theatres." As far as selling it, what difference does that make, really? I gathered from the tone of this thread was that everybody was kind of past that notion of commercial success; perhaps I was wrong. But if you think a new Malick film, about "the sweep of life" or whatever, at this point in history, is going to make any kind of a serious dent at the box office, then I don't know what to tell you. Aggressive marketing or not. I haven't seen the movie, but my educated guess is it ain't no Slumdog Millionaire. And The New World performed how it did because, well... have you seen the movie? Does it strike you in any way as some mass-audience crowd-pleaser?

My point is, it doesn't really matter who releases it. As long as it gets released. It'll do what it's going to do. (Not much, is my bet.)

When I say "get it into theatres", I mean "get it into enough theatres so that you don't need to really go out of your way to see it."

It's a Malick film; it's made for art, not commerce, we all know that. All I'm saying is that Fox Searchlight will throw a bunch of money at it anyway, which is nice. As a Malick fan, I don't like seeing his films dumped.

TedW wrote:As I said, any one of these guys can "get it into theatres." As far as selling it, what difference does that make, really? I gathered from the tone of this thread was that everybody was kind of past that notion of commercial success; perhaps I was wrong. But if you think a new Malick film, about "the sweep of life" or whatever, at this point in history, is going to make any kind of a serious dent at the box office, then I don't know what to tell you. Aggressive marketing or not. I haven't seen the movie, but my educated guess is it ain't no Slumdog Millionaire. And The New World performed how it did because, well... have you seen the movie? Does it strike you in any way as some mass-audience crowd-pleaser?

My point is, it doesn't really matter who releases it. As long as it gets released. It'll do what it's going to do. (Not much, is my bet.)

The more commercially successful a filmmaker is, the freer the filmmaker is to do what he/she wants. I think if Malick had recent films that made a good deal of money before The Thin Red Line, we might have gotten a much longer cut.

I don't think that anybody believes that it is actually going to be very commercially successful, but it can have the illusion of success, which is arguably more important. If the film has a reasonable amount publicity and advertising (which will, of course, tout it as "Brad Pitt, Sean Penn, and CGI dinosaurs in an epic tale you must see to believe!"), gets into a relatively large number of theaters, gets the right kind of platform rollout and critical buildup, and gets a big awards season push with a few nominations, it can at least be perceived as successful enough that studios are willing to roll the dice on the newly-prolific Terrence Malick. Maybe he won't make a ton of money for them, but he won't break them either, and he brings the studio a lot of positive attention. That's a lot more likely to happen with a studio like Fox Searchlight that is well-known for its successful marketing and awards-season savvy.

I think you're just making stuff up. Malick clearly has done exactly what he wanted to do. There is no "longer cut" that was taken away from him or whatever due to lack of commercial success. (And the shorter versions of New World were completely agreed to by him.)

And as far as his films being "dumped," why fear that? None of his films has ever been dumped. It's got Brad Pitt in it. It'll get a release.

[cough]Assassination of Jesse James[/cough]

swo17 wrote:[cough]Assassination of Jesse James[/cough]

Well, I saw it in the theater, but... fair enough, I'll concede that one.

TedW wrote:I think you're just making stuff up. Malick clearly has done exactly what he wanted to do. There is no "longer cut" that was taken away from him or whatever due to lack of commercial success. (And the shorter versions of New World were completely agreed to by him.)

I assume you're addressing scissorduck (brother of toiletduck! ?), since I never insinuated that he has ever had final cut taken from him. I only suggested that it is easier for successful filmmakers to get films financed.

TedW wrote:And as far as his films being "dumped," why fear that? None of his films has ever been dumped. It's got Brad Pitt in it. It'll get a release.

Well it's not like there is a ton of precedence for Malick films in general. I think the fear was that it would end up being eked out by the remnants of Apparition who presumably couldn't afford to do much with it.

So I guess this means we won't see a goddamned trailer for this imaginary film until a goddamned year from now?

If it premieres at Cannes, we might have professional reviews before a trailer is released.
Then again, maybe Searchlight will release it in the summer. We'll see.