Two major films have already been bumped from Q4 into Q1. Yes, those are business quarters, hold on.
The main one bumped from fall 2009 to winter 2010 is Martin Scorsese’s “Shutter Island” — which is actually kind of obvious when you realize it’s a thriller, not Oscar-bait of any kind — and the second one is Paul Greengrass’ “Green Zone” which was going to hit in the fall and is now set for March 2010.
But these days its all about coming up in the black in your last quarter so you can not be ashamed — or fired — over your fiscal year totals. That means, having a so-so year? I.e. like Paramount and Universal? Hit reset in the new year and put the spending into a different brand and new quarter with a whole new budget.
Money issues like this are essentially the fates that befell both ‘Island’ and “Green Zone.” More evidence of this? See Universal’s weak year. When the trades ranked all the studios $$ performance this year, who was at the bottom of the pile? Universal, sadly enough — they did some experimentation this year too, including letting Judd Apatow release a two and a half hour comedy, “Funny People,” and letting Michael Mann release a rather still-born two and a half hour gangster epic “Public Enemies” (we should applaud these moves from a creative stand-point and we do, but unfortunately they didn’t pay off).
Even more evidence why this was shoved off? According to “Green Zone” star Matt Damon in an Empire interview, the film cost $100 million dollars.
“It’s great, I’ve seen it. They’re finishing some of the effects, and it’ll be ready for March. We got a $100m Iraq movie, so we’ll see! I do have high hopes for it, though. I think it’s really good. I know the Iraq movies haven’t been particularly popular so far, but hopefully this will find an audience. It’s a thriller, really, set against the canvas of Iraq in 2003.”
Umm yeah, Iraq movies with audiences. Not so much. Iraq movies that cost $100 million dollars? Yikes. We’re all for the fact that Universal has made some bold creative moves this year, but if the film did actually cost that much to make — Damon is obviously not the numbers man on the project — and they still have to spend at least $20 million to market it (conservative number), does this thing ever have a chance of making its money back? Yes, it is an “action thriller” not an “Iraq War film,” but so was “The Hurt Locker.” Can Damon, and “from-the-director-of-The-Bourne franchise” really sell this thing?
We curse ourselves for writing this. We want to see this movie do well, we’re glad Greengrass was able to make this film, but since it’s not franchise, i.e. “Bourne 4,” is the one-for-me, one-for-the-studio idea quickly going to dry up within the big-budget studio system?
