criterionforum.org

Uh-oh. :-k

One would think it would be for the Oscars but if the film is released in 2010 it wouldn't be eligible for the Oscars in 2010. Typical Oscar contenders are released around December before the Oscars. Many films released in the beginning of the year that should be considered Oscar contenders are often forgotten due to short attention spans in the media.

He was being sarcastic

Sorry. Didn't hear the sarcasm in his voice.

domino harvey wrote:He was being sarcastic

Thanks for explaining

oldsheperd wrote:February 19th!? That's pushing the release back four months! Either this movie didn't test well or something really wacky happened.

Apparently it tested extremely well.
Paramount don't think it's beneficial to release it this year when the marketing costs are taken into account.
Maybe they think that an Oscar campaign would be expensive and futile and they'd rather pour those resources into The Lovely Bones?

Cde. wrote:Apparently it tested extremely well.

Source? That's hard to believe, since February is where bad films go to die.

This has little bearing on the discussion, but I came across that Silence Of The Lambs was released in February, on Valentine's Day no less. I wonder how many other times the big winner didn't come out during Oscar season.

That's also a huge and oft-cited exception to the rule

flyonthewall2983 wrote:This has little bearing on the discussion, but I came across that Silence Of The Lambs was released in February, on Valentine's Day no less. I wonder how many other times the big winner didn't come out during Oscar season.

That is indeed the famous exception to the rule. Nobody expected Silence of the Lambs to get nearly the reaction it did from critics, audiences, or the Academy. It almost went direct-to-video. That was 18+ years ago, and I can't think of a time that anything similar has happened since.

Unforgiven, Forrest Gump, Braveheart and Gladiator were all spring and summer movies.

Summer movies are released because they're going to make money. February movies are dumped because no one is going to the theaters. If you're really going to cite Braveheart, released as a summer blockbuster at the end of May and which was itself a surprise nominee much less winner, then okay: If Shutter Island gets pushed to the end of May, I will concede that the studio might think it will make money.

True, I was just citing those films as other examples to the rule.

I found the source article for the high scores report. I'm still not buying Brad Grey's spiel though. The economy may have something to do with it, but if they thought this had even a remote shot at an Oscar, they'd release it in October.

Yeah, I think /Film also said it tested high-80s, low-90s—but they could've just been cribbing this article. Either way, it doesn't make sense to dump a film that tested so poorly in February, even if you don't think it has any award chances.

nsps wrote:Yeah, I think /Film also said it tested high-80s, low-90s—but they could've just been cribbing this article. Either way, it doesn't make sense to dump a film that tested so poorly in February, even if you don't think it has any award chances.

Yeah, all the articles that mention the alleged 'high test scores' seem to be parroting Nikki's article. The problem is that Finke's source is someone at Paramount which means it's probably spin.

At any rate I have a hard job understanding how a movie that supposedly scores so high with viewers is being dumped in February instead of released during the summer. That makes no sense to me & the rest of Par's excuses are absurd. They haven't got the Oscar marketing budget? Look, if they genuinely thought the movie was a sure fire Oscar contender of course they'd have the money & anyway what kind of business publicly announces to the world that it's run out of cash? That's absurd. Paramount hasn't run out of money but it sure looks like they don't want to burn cash promoting this particular film. You have to wonder why.

Then there's the claim that DiCaprio's schedule doesn't allow him to promote Shutter Island? What, & they only just found this out - some six weeks before release? You have to be kidding! This is an expensive big studio pic & almost certainly a contractual obligation for DiCaprio when he signed his contract. Again, one gets the feeling that Paramount aren't being entirely open here & I come back to that ominous February release date. February. Where bad movies go to die.

It's hard to pin down sources, but for the past few months I've been hearing in a few places that this tested really well.

Maybe it is Paramount spin, maybe not.

Maybe they don't have the extra $65 million or so it would take to heavily advertise during Oscar season (Dave Poland's $ estimate). I have a really hard time believing that it's because the movie is crap. The trailer plays like gangbusters in the theater (saw it last night before "Basterds", and heard a lot of "I want to see that"'s). And they're already wasting advertising money on it. There's a huge standup advertisement at the theater I went to last night (Pacific Place), and the popcorn bag I was eating out of was for the movie (a popcorn bag for a Scorsese movie!?). What a bunch of dopes, this looks like a surefire hit to me.

If someone already made this comparison I missed it, but Paramount did the same thing two years ago with Zodiac. That made little sense at the time and even less when Zodiac opened to great reviews and poor box office and was shunned for awards.

Here's another thought: maybe the studio concluded that this isn't Oscar bait material worthy of the expensive campaign, but is instead just a decent genre picture. One of the articles I read suggested that Paramount is still hoping on this being a big draw between the end of the year pictures and the next Iron Man movie in May. Who knows?

souvenir wrote:If someone already made this comparison I missed it, but Paramount did the same thing two years ago with Zodiac. That made little sense at the time and even less when Zodiac opened to great reviews and poor box office and was shunned for awards.

Phoenix Pictures was also responsible for Zodiac, which is a partner on this film too.

Yeah, teenage-geared genre movies seem to play well in February, March, April, so maybe Paramount's hoping to attract that demographic plus an older audience by the virtue of the talent involved. If this were released in the fall, I could easily see that older crowd pass on the film in favor of a safer prestige picture, but in February, it will face no competition.

The trailer didn't make this look that exciting - and I've never found a lot to grab on to in Scorsese films (as fun as they often are) - but I like Emily Mortimer and was interested in seeing her go all-out.

Scorsese is probably one of the most easily recognizable directors amongsat the general public so it's not like it would be a major bomb in any season.
I too saw the standup poster and popcorn bags. What a big waste of money for the studio.

The Fall Release schedule in today's New York Times now lists October 22 as the date.