Features
Headlines
Search
Loading ...
Archives
This is a stunning development. It seems Paramount has decided to move the release date of Martin Scrosese’s “Shutter Island” from October 2009, a mere two months away, to February 2010. The move reflects a similar last minute decision to move “The Soloist” out of last year’s fall slate to the Spring 2009 frame. Nikki Finke has the scoop.
The obvious answer here is money. An awards campaign was certainly in the cards for “Shutter Island,” and those aren’t cheap. But while “The Soloist” ultimately opened and was revealed as less than Oscar-caliber, Scorsese’s film has been testing really well and was expected to be a big 2009 awards player.
Still, these are tough times. Everyone’s looking for ways to cut back and deal with the here and now and obviously, an Oscar campaign just didn’t seem fiscally responsible for a studio that will already have two major hopefuls in Jason Reitman’s “Up in the Air” and Peter Jackson’s “The Lovely Bones.”
Next year things could be different, and as Finke points out, a February release date didn’t work out too bad for “The Silence of the Lambs,” another thriller, back in 1991. An insider is quoted as shrewdly noting “Now that the Academy has Best Picture to 10 films…it will be easier for a movie that came out in the beginning of the year to get nominated for Best Picture.”
Regardless, I most certainly wouldn’t look to this as an indication of quality. And truthfully, anyone who thinks this doesn’t make sound business sense isn’t being honest with themselves and is looking to stir controversy where there is none. So lighten up on the conspiracy theories.
Chalk it up as one less contender this year. From a film fan stand-point, it certainly sucks. The trailer is rather intriguing and the mere thought of Scorsese tackling genre again is exciting. But we’ll have to wait a little bit longer.
62 responses so far
1 8-21-2009 at 11:21 am
André said...
WHAT?!
holy crap! I was really looking forward to this… now I have to wait longer!
way to ruin my friday, Kris! =P
2 8-21-2009 at 11:23 am
Mark Kratina said...
Was looking forward to SI in October.
Weird coincidence?: Shutter Island gets moved back the same day you post the latest trailer for Arkham Asylum- per the game, another island prison. Hmmm………….
3 8-21-2009 at 11:24 am
Robert Hamer said...
Damn, didn’t see this coming at all. You would think that Scorsese, of all people, wouldn’t have to worry about his films being the victim of studio politics and the economy.
Guess not. Damn.
4 8-21-2009 at 11:28 am
McGuff said...
Yeah, based on Hamer’s comment, I have a question about studio politics for those in the know. I’m assuming that Scorsese had an X number of pictures with Paramount deal, but is it really advantageous for the studio to piss off one of our greatest living directors? Is he likely to jump to another studio after this?
5 8-21-2009 at 11:29 am
Kokushi said...
Horrible news.
6 8-21-2009 at 11:31 am
Kokushi said...
So, according to paramount is Jason Reitman > Scorcese, LOL.
7 8-21-2009 at 11:34 am
red_wine said...
I wasn’t VERY excited about the movie. It was something I might have seen for completion’s sake, of course open to the possibility of being pleasantly surprised.
But I hope its not the quality. Usually movies are bumped up because they are not worth campaigning for. We can only hope that’s not the case.
8 8-21-2009 at 11:40 am
Kristopher Tapley said...
Kokushi: Obviously not. Like I said. It’s about money.
9 8-21-2009 at 11:49 am
Rae Kasey said...
BOO.
10 8-21-2009 at 11:52 am
Mike_M said...
Damn this news sucks…
11 8-21-2009 at 12:07 pm
Vito said...
*cries*
Oh, well. I guess can look forward to two possibly awesome Leo movies next year. Shutter Island and Inception.
12 8-21-2009 at 12:10 pm
Kristopher Tapley said...
Good point, Vito. DiCaprio’s 2010 profile just got a lot brighter.
13 8-21-2009 at 12:25 pm
Ronn Burner said...
Whoa. That certainly changes things and will affect 2 years. This is huge news… especially IF it turns out to be the Oscar winner next year causing the inevitable “what if” scenarios for the showdown with eventual winner this year and the film that “would” have won had SI not been pushed… not to mention the Acting categories. It’s a real game changer. I don’t like “if’s” and that’s certainly an overflow of them but still… what if?
Nevertheless, next year Leo’s run could top that of his “The Departed” and “Blood Diamond” run. I for one, was blown away with his performances in that year. The sadness from this year will be the exhilaration of next.
14 8-21-2009 at 12:31 pm
RichardA said...
Citing “Silence of the Lambs” as an example doesn’t really help because it’s “Silence of the Lambs”.
Boo, hiss.
But another way of looking at it is that the studio just doesn’t think the movie is as good as Lovely Bones or Up in the Air.
So when “The Soloist” was pushed back to this year, did the movie they pick to campaign on won??? Anyone know which movie that was?
15 8-21-2009 at 12:32 pm
Robert Hamer said...
“…as Finke points out, a February release date didn’t work out too bad for “The Silence of the Lambs,” another thriller, back in 1991.”
That was 18 years ago, and one of the weakest years for films. Another drought like that would be a miracle for Shutter Island.
“An insider is quoted as shrewdly noting “Now that the Academy has Best Picture to 10 films…it will be easier for a movie that came out in the beginning of the year to get nominated for Best Picture.”
Yeah, but the acting categories haven’t expanded, so a February release pretty much kills any chance Mark Ruffalo had of a rumored and long-overdue Best Supporting Actor nomination.
16 8-21-2009 at 12:34 pm
Kristopher Tapley said...
A drought? Pretty solid line-up if you look back at it. And regardless, this line of thinking makes sense with a 10-nominee system, so it’s not just the one thing.
17 8-21-2009 at 12:34 pm
Elizabeth said...
While I am very disappointed with this news as it was one of the few films I was looking forward to in the fall, I have to ask if it was really all that Oscar worthY? I read the book which was a fun goth-horror read and from the looks of the trailer, Scorsese made a goth-horror film. Does the Academy really ever reward those types of movies?
18 8-21-2009 at 12:35 pm
david said...
At least the early portion of 2010 will be loaded with interesting films (Shutter Island, Alice in Wonderland, The Green Zone, The Wolf Man, Book of Eli, Legion, etc…).
Any official release date yet for The Tree of Life??
19 8-21-2009 at 12:38 pm
Kristopher Tapley said...
I hear December but I’ll believe it when I see it.
20 8-21-2009 at 12:49 pm
Robert Hamer said...
“A drought? Pretty solid line-up if you look back at it.”
Not relatively speaking. Sure, there were great films like The Silence of the Lambs, Barton Fink, and Boyz N the Hood, but most of the ambitious films that year either completely (The Prince of Tides) or just somewhat (Thelma & Louise) missed the mark. I mean, really, when the Academy actually nominates an animated film and a February release for Best Picture, you know their options were slim.
“And regardless, this line of thinking makes sense with a 10-nominee system, so it’s not just the one thing.”
I *know* that, but Shutter Island’s chances are still lowered, and Ruffalo gets screwed.
21 8-21-2009 at 12:51 pm
Kristopher Tapley said...
Not disputing that.
22 8-21-2009 at 12:54 pm
Melissa said...
I was really hoping Leo would get some award love this year…
23 8-21-2009 at 12:54 pm
Ryan said...
>>The obvious answer here is money.
Ah no, the obvious answer here is that Shutter Island sucks the proverbial big one.
I can’t say I’m entirely surprised by this news. The trailer looked like Scorsese was channeling Baz Luhrmann & as for its commercial appeal – if the test scores are as high as Par claim, why are they dumping it in the wasteland that is February? Would not a summer opening be more appropriate for such a supposedly commercial crowdpleaser?
Poor Marty’s made his share of misfires over the decades & sadly this just smells like another.
I note also that Paramount’s reported paucity of funding doesn’t look like affecting their other likely Oscar contenders. Strange, that.
24 8-21-2009 at 1:04 pm
Chase Kahn said...
This is horrible. Smells of the injustice of “Zodiac” in ‘07/’06 — assuming, of course, that “Shutter Island” is a great film, who knows.
25 8-21-2009 at 1:07 pm
Robert Hamer said...
Funny you should mention Zodiac, another film containing a great Mark Ruffalo performance.
26 8-21-2009 at 1:08 pm
Ronn Burner said...
Yet another Mark Ruffalo snubbing. Poor guy.
27 8-21-2009 at 1:24 pm
/3rtfu11 said...
This Oscar season is boring already – I’m happy for the supporting actress buzz for Precious – the supporting actor buzz for the Tarantino picture – the front runner buzz for The Streep – but what else to do we have to look forward too?
28 8-21-2009 at 1:28 pm
benito delicias said...
what the f-CK???????
I think this is the most shocked I’ve been with a date move in recent years….You wouldn’t expect a Martin Scorsese movie to move like that….ok, there’s Gangs, but still…
However, as much as I’m shocked, I can still believe it’ll be a good movie because I don’t really think this particular movie got moved because it was bad and it will just go to February to die…
I was really looking forward to it…
29 8-21-2009 at 1:32 pm
benito delicias said...
like Chase Kahn said…maybe it’ll turn out to be a Zodiac situation and not a Soloist situation…
30 8-21-2009 at 1:33 pm
Robert Hamer said...
“…but what else to do we have to look forward too?”
Uh, how about Tree of Life and Where the Wild Things Are? C’mon, let’s not be so cynical right out of the gate! Surely the next Best Picture winner can’t be as overrated as Slumdog Millionaire.
31 8-21-2009 at 1:42 pm
Chris138 said...
Damn, this sucks. I was looking forward to October 2nd.
32 8-21-2009 at 1:50 pm
Patryk said...
I was thinking 4-5 acting nominations…oh well.
33 8-21-2009 at 2:26 pm
Chase Kahn said...
Surely someone will move up into the now vacant October 2nd spot, right?
“Whip It” and the “Toy Story” re-releases can’t go it alone, could they?
34 8-21-2009 at 3:27 pm
AmericanRequiem said...
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
35 8-21-2009 at 3:42 pm
Chad Hartigan said...
Say what you want but I will be analyzing this at work as a terrible business decision.
36 8-21-2009 at 3:58 pm
James D. said...
This really opens up the acting spots even more.
At the rate that films are being pushed to 2010, this year might end up as predictable as last year!
37 8-21-2009 at 4:00 pm
Zach said...
This can’t be about quality at all, it’s just that Jason Reitman is more important and stuff so why release it in 2009, that’s soooooo irresponsible!!!!!11!
Something’s screwy in the land of Paramount.
38 8-21-2009 at 4:09 pm
Georgie said...
I’m upset. Very upset.
Although that January-February-March season of just awful films looks to be a lot more interesting this year.
39 8-21-2009 at 4:17 pm
Chris said...
I think it’s incredibly disrespectful to treat Scorsese like that. He’s the greatest living American director, for Christ’s sake.
40 8-21-2009 at 4:31 pm
Encore Entertainment said...
Good grief Kristopher, 40 comments in under fifteen minutes. Anyhow, I was really pissed ans still am because I was already tired of waiting for the Fall, now I have to wait till next year.
Unrelated, ummm what did you think of The Soloist?
41 8-21-2009 at 4:34 pm
Alex said...
I think they’ll end up pushing it back even further.
42 8-21-2009 at 4:50 pm
Average Joe said...
This is officially the worst thing I’ve heard on my birthday ever. WTF!?!?
Has any Scorsese movie in the past two or three decades been released some time earlier than Fall?
I could wait forever for Up In the Air, but I can’t wait another minute for Shutter Island.
43 8-21-2009 at 4:59 pm
Helena said...
Average Joe
I totally agree with your comment below
“I could wait forever for Up In the Air, but I can’t wait another minute for Shutter Island.
44 8-21-2009 at 5:03 pm
Kristopher Tapley said...
Ryan: This has nothing to do with the quality of the film and everything to do with the cost of marketing and releasing it. No one hides a film or moves it from a prime date because it “sucks” without having a plan for the prime real estate.
45 8-21-2009 at 6:31 pm
Glenn said...
Damn. Oh well, we all knew this was going to happen to at least one movie. It always does.
Ryan, horror films (even big ones) have proven to fail time and time again during Summer so no this shouldn’t have been moved to Summer.
BTW Kris moving from October to February is not “a mere two months”. Might wanna edit that.
46 8-21-2009 at 6:38 pm
Chase Kahn said...
Glenn — that’s “two months away” as in August 21st to October 2nd, although if you wanted to get technical we’re talking more like 6 weeks.
47 8-21-2009 at 7:38 pm
al b. said...
NOOOOOO!! First Wolf Man and now THIS! DAMMIT!
Del Toro and DiCaprio gettin the shaft!
48 8-21-2009 at 7:39 pm
al b. said...
…and I forgot Damon and Green Zone! DAMMIT!
49 8-21-2009 at 8:02 pm
Chad Hartigan said...
Tree of Life is Dec. 25 by the way.
50 8-21-2009 at 10:23 pm
Hans said...
Well, I wouldn’t quite call this a “game-changer”, but Marty’s an Academy favorite, so any kind of film he makes, even if it’s in an Oscar-unfriendly genre like horror, would at least be given a second look come awards time.
I just hope this doesn’t crowd out “Inception” next year. I want that to be Nolan’s apology-pony right to the Kodak stage.
[small voice]
Here we come, Star Trek nomination!
[/small voice]
51 8-21-2009 at 11:21 pm
M.Harris said...
Wow! A Scorsese film being moved back out of prime Oscar time? Academy unfriendly or not.This was a major surprise.
Even more surprising was that it screened well.And still got moved.I read about the “Silence of The Lambs” comparison but outside of that one movie what in the last twenty years has been nominated that came out in February? That release date is very curious to me.
If it is as good as the screeners say that it is-why not wait till later in the calender year and release it in Sept-Oct of next fall.
I’m looking forward to seeing it in February.Big Scorsese and DiCaprio fan.
52 8-22-2009 at 12:13 am
Johnny Doubles said...
So, now for a THIRD time, a Martin Scorsese film that many felt was Oscar-bound (at least in a few categories) gets pushed back a year. This shouldn’t come as too big a surprise to those of us who remember the same thing happening to ‘Age of Innocence’ and ‘Gangs of New York’. While this clearly effected ‘Innocence’s’ chances (it certainly would’ve received nominations for BP, director, actor, and probably actress; plus, Winona Ryder could’ve been victorious in the supporting category had the film been released the year it was originally supposed to be). ‘Gangs’, not so much, as it still received 10 noms, including BP and director.
But, at the same time, I feel there is a major misconception cineastes have about Scorsese in that they feel industry folk share the same esteem for the man as they. Au contrere… In my days as a movie critic and writer (very brief, unfortunately), I covered the Oscars back in ‘02. Then, the sources I held within the Academy assured me that Scorsese would NOT win for ‘Gangs’, because he wasn’t particularly beloved by the big brass within Hollywood. Not that they hated the man, they just didn’t care for him. Up until ‘The Aviator’ and ‘The Departed’, he hasn’t made too many people too much money, and while there is nobody who denies his stature, they weren’t ready to just hand him an Oscar simply because he was overdue (of course, this was up until ‘The Departed’, which was by far the most money any film of his had ever made).
I mention this simply to try to address the confusion goes toward a Scorsese film getting pushed back (as if he holds such a high stature that this would NEVER happen). While this DID seem like a very marketable outing for the man, he’s not a director who dictates when his films are released and how they’re promoted. On time and under budget are NOT Scorsese trademarks, and therefore, he’s not as beloved by the people who fund his movies as those who watch them.
53 8-22-2009 at 4:20 am
Glenn said...
This is HARDLY the same scenario as “Gangs of New York”. It’s four months. Hardly an entire year.
“Here we come, Star Trek nomination!”
“Inglourious Basterds” and “District 9″ probably have better shots than “Star Trek”.
54 8-22-2009 at 7:31 am
John H. Foote said...
What a pisser — was among the films I was really looking forward to seeing…February??? Kiss of death, got to wonder why.
55 8-22-2009 at 9:25 am
Johnny Doubles said...
No, you’re right. It isn’t the same exact scenario as ‘Gangs of New York’. I was just citing precedence with Scorsese films being pushed back.
I see this film as one of Scorsese’s more commercial films, and not so much an awards-bait type (of course, I felt the same about ‘The Departed’ before its release, and we all know what happened there). Besides ‘Silence of the Lambs’ as a precedent, there is also ‘Moulin Rouge’, which was pushed back from the heat of awards season in 2000 to spring of 2001. Nobody gave it too much of a shot considering this, and it hit big at nomination time. Here, it seems the studio felt it had a better shot to WIN with the other two movies, and therefore, didn’t want to dillute their chances with a Scorsese film to back as well.
56 8-23-2009 at 10:40 am
Abby said...
Eh, I didn’t think this film looked Oscar worthy anyway….it looked good, but not Oscar worthy. More like your run of the mill thriller. Didn’t even seem like a Scorsese film to me.
57 8-26-2009 at 4:20 pm
Bryan said...
Could it be that the studios are cutting back on other projects, therefore needing to spread out releases that are already completed or near-completion in order to have a full slate available for next year?
Just a thought.
58 8-28-2009 at 1:39 pm
BerkeleyGirl said...
Love the Ruffalo love here – how about some for Emily Mortimer???
I’m pretty surprised by this, but also recall the phenomenal testing of “Up in the Air” reported at this site.
Encore: I fell asleep on “The Soloist.” RDJ was his usual brilliant self but Foxx just tried too hard. (Imagine the great Jeffrey Wright in the role…)
Johnny Doubles: Sharp comments on Scorsese v. Tinseltown. No surprise, especially after he’s lost to not one but two actor-”directors.”