UPDATE 4:30PM: Paramount Chief Brad Grey has now released a statement: “Our 2009 slate was greenlit in a very different economic climate and as a result we must remain flexible and willing to recalibrate and adapt to a changing environment. This is a situation facing every single studio as we all work through the financial pressures associated with the broader downturn. Like every business, we must make difficult choices to maximize our overall success and to best manage Paramount’s business in a way that serves Viacom and its shareholders, while providing the film with every possible chance to succeed both creatively and financially.
“Leonardo DiCaprio is among the most talented actors working today and 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 Viacom.”
EXCLUSIVE 10:40AM: This Shutter Island decision is now the second major studio pic to jump from Fall 2009 to February 2010 (after Universal’s The Wolfman recently moved off November). But Paramount’s adaptation of the Dennis Lehane novel directed by Marty Scorsese and starring Leonardo DiCaprio looked entrenched for October 2nd and this coming awards season. For godsakes, the pic is already on people’s Oscar list. Such a surprise delay is just going to compound all the buzz surrounding the picture and its great trailer released in June. An insider tells me. “It tested in the high 80s/low 90s and Scorsese even brought it down to 2 hours.” So what’s the problem? I hear that Paramount told the filmmakers it doesn’t have the financing in 2009 to spend the $50M to $60M necessary to market a big awards pic like this. (But a studio source insists to me it’s got the cash, just not the home video sales:
“Given where the DVD business is in 2009, our only hope is the economy and the retail business rebounds in 2010 because the hardest hit segment has been movies that play to an older adult audience,” a studio source tells me.) *UPDATE: I’m also told that, among the many reasons for the move, Leo wasn’t going to be available to promote the pic internationally.* So the studio settled on the release date of February 19th because “that’s when Silence Of The Lambs came out” back in 1991 and it won the Oscar. “Now that the Academy has expanded Best Picture to 10 films,” my insider notes, “it will be easier for a movie that came out in the beginning of the year to get nominated.”
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.


“the hardest hit segment has been movies that play to an older adult audience”
Which these days is what, anyone audience member over the age (mental or physical) of 13. The Hollywood marketing gurus aren’t doing their jobs if this is the case. I always see a million commercials for Transformers and GI Joe, stuff that you already know is going to be huge without the onslaught of advertising. It’s like the studios don’t even bother on anything else other than sure hits because they don’t know how to market anything unless it was based off of a toy or comic book. You don’t have to spend a ton of money to successfully promote a film (look at District 9). But then again, you need people working for the studios that know what they’re doing, and it appears that’s asking to much when it comes to anything other than a trailer you can put together of two cartton robots hitting each other.
I think we’re watching Hollywood’s bad business practices coming home to roost. They’ve reached the point where they’ve begun to literally price themselves out of business.
Rupert P. Bad idea For overture films PANDORUM because the studio already has the new Michael Moore documentary Capitalism: A Love Story, on October 2nd it’s was a good idea but it’s not going to work
So much NO, and one yes.
-no, the trailer wasn’t “great,” it stank from a certain staleness to the movie
-no, the movie doesn’t look appealing or original in either style, presentation or dialogue
-no, Paramount is not too broke to spend $50M on advertising, just too cheap
-no, I’m not convinced DiCaprio is not available to promote a feature of this caliber (though, of course, my presumptions about his schedule are just that, presumptions)
-no, the release date of Silence of the Lambs has nothing to do with this movie’s success or failure
-no, the horrors of expansion to 10 films has still not sunk in
-and yes, it’ll be easier for a movie – ANY movie – that came out in that awards “year” get nominated.
And now I’m going to curl up and try to think of nothing for a while.
Leo’s Inception shoot is going to go pretty long.
does anyone take this studio seriously anymore? And still, Brad has a job
Cape Fear on an island, isn’t it? With that boy from Growing Pains?
Yeah, Harry, “The Departed” was a BIG misfire, only won him an Oscar, genius.
I never read the book but this script is fantastic. Even though I thought it was a bit of an odd choice for Marty, I was excited to see what he would do with such a great story and an amazing lead. I almost threw up when I saw the trailer. It looked like a formulaic Lionsgate film, not the next addition to Marty’s amazing library of work. Pushing the date only makes this seem more likely. I wouldn’t get my hopes up people…
I agree that Overture should move Pandorum to that date. Going up against Surrogates is not a good idea.
the push to February worked for SILENCE OF THE LAMBS.
Whatever the reasons, there’s no getting around it; it makes Scorsese look like a dumped chump. Especially after “The Departed” did so well in every way. The whole 10 title Best Picture thing – that is one lame “cover” in the Seventh Inning Stretch of a film’s roll-out. Part of the problem with “Funny People” (I thought) was that the same trailer was in theatres for far too long a period of time. That can backfire. The picture starts to smell like “disappointment” or “orphaned stepchild.” Plus – if you start to have to watch the trailer again and again – you start to hate the movie on general principle alone. This matter also sounds like an example of how the distraction of a mega-merger negatively impacts many careers individually as a consequence of the director’s agent being “asleep at the wheel” because he’s raising the sails on the Good Ship Ego. Also : Couldn’t Media Rights Capital have given Paramount the money? Or Jim Wiatt perhaps?
I read the novel, and I found it pretty banal. Maybe they can do something to improve it, but the plot of the novel was generic and predictable.
The reason for the move is bonuses, Paramount cant afford to have this movie come in at the end of the year and hurt its OIBDA number. Lower year end OIBDA means lower bonuses for the execs.
Big789, Is CAPITALISM: A LOVE STORY getting a wide release October 2nd? If not, I don’t think the studio will have anything to worry about throwing PANDORUM wide that day. Anything is better then committing box office suicide against SURROGATES. In fact, they had a better shot against JENNIFER’S BODY.
But there is no big genre title that day, horror or sci-fi. And the posters and trailers for PANDORUM have been excellent. Be a shame to see all that effort go to waste. I think they got something special there and now they have a date that can work.
A whole lot of conjecture about how bad it supposedly is and yet no one in here has seen a frame of the film. I talked to one person who saw it at a screening and they were “blown away”. They actually compared it to Silence of the Lambs and Hitchcock.
But that’s besides the point.
It’s just a movie people, designed to make rich people richer and entertain you in the process. Is it any surprise that Brad Grey mentioned Viacom’s shareholders in his press release before he mentioned Mr. Scorsese? This is a Wall Street endeavor, not art.
Viacom versus News Corp – the choice is clear
WHIP IT, from Fox Searchlight, moves up into the SHUTTER ISLAND slot on October 2nd
Lots of haters here. I think the movie looks great!
You can do well with schlock in a dump month, but it’s ideally schlock with a budget closer to “Hostel” than whatever they just spent on Wolfman/Shutter Island. To the “Silence” comparisons: Shutter Island stars Leo DiCaprio as what appears to be deliberately generic cop character. The trailer promises that you’ll get to watch him drugged, paranoid, running around on rocks. Silence of the Lambs starred Anthony Hopkins blowing everyone’s minds as a cartoon cannibal supervillain. The trailer promised that you’d get to watch him tearing people apart.
SILENCE OF THE LAMBS was pushed to February because Orion filed for bankruptcy and didn’t have the cash on hand to release the picture..
hmmm…
Paramount did it again. Last year it was The Soloist and now Shutter Island. Based on The Soloist, I can guess the movie is not that great and it would look better for them to say the movie was not one of the top 10 Oscar nominated movies because it was released too early in the year than not making the list had it been released in October this year because the movie really isn’t good.Pure speculation on my part since I haven’t seen it.
But I can’t buy Grey’s excuse. Paramount has three movies that grossed in excess of $200M in North America this year, including THE highest grossing film of 2009 (so far), the excruciatingly bad Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.
So the film was scheduled for an October release for how long and they just realized that Leo wasn’t available for international press now?
Personally, I hated the end of the book. Haven’t wanted to throw a book across the room for wasting hours of my life in a long time….probably not since the atrocity that was Hannibal. I’m not sure people aren’t going to feel really cheated when they see the movie too. And I happen to really like both Leo and Marty. Just don’t think it was the best choice of source material.
Quote “You’re so right. And what do all of his films in the 2000s have in common? Leonardo DiCaprio. Every single friggin’ movie he directs now must include Babyface DiCaprio, and he’s been miscast in every single one. I’m surprised Scorsese didn’t lobby to have DiCaprio sing lead for the Rolling Stones in Shine a Light.
DiCaprio is such a lightweight onscreen – even when he’s fifty, the guy’s going to look twelve. And Scorsese’s insisting DiCaprio plays Frank Sinatra? DiCaprio looks nothing like young Frank Sinatra, and his high voice sounds nothing like him. Scorsese won’t have a shot at making a great film again until he gets over his Leonardo DiCaprio obsession.”
Whoever wrote this is an idiot. All three pictures Scorsese made with DiCaprio were nominated for Best Picture. Scorsese won Best Director for a film with a phenomenal performance by DiCaprio (who should have won the Oscar that year). So give up the DiCaprio bashing.
As for Sinatra — he had a rather high voice and was very boyish when he was young.
If Paramount is smart, they just release it for one week this year in LA and NY.
It might get nominations and then they can think about how to spend their PR dollars.
To push this film to February is like commiting box office suicide.
Theo
Guess who’s going back to Warner Bros.?