"Zodiac" bumped again

email this story
read comments (27)
post a comment

Paramount's done it to Zodiac again!! David Fincher's hunting-the-zodiac-killer melodrama was going to open on 1.17.07 -- now the national release date has been bumped to 3.2.07, according to Box-Office Mojo. And this for a movie that will absolutely be finished and ready to screen by 11.10 or 11.15, according to a well-placed source.

I'm sure we'll be hearing a nicely measured, sensible-sounding explanation within the next day or two. Example: "March is a better release date than mid-January and we want this film to be as big a hit as possible ." I know they aren't burying it -- if they wanted to do that they'd release it in mid-April. One definite advantage from Paramount's perspective is that now they won't have to bother with Zodiac in the middle of their Oscar campaigns for Dreamgirls and World Trade Center, which will be more than enough fish to fry for their p.r. team. One other plus is that guys like me can no longer bellyache about their refusal to give it a late-December platform opening.

All I know is, Paramount just won't stop treating this movie like a poor relation and kicking it around like a tin can. They obviously don't feel it's very commercial, they don't want it in the way, and so they're keeping it on the bench a few weeks more. The delay certainly isn't due to any plans for extra work to be done. Even if Fincher wanted to go out and shoot extra footage right now Par could still release it by 1.17 -- George Hickenlooper's Factory Girl is doing extra lensing as we speak and yet it'll be shown to critics by early December and released into theatres about three weeks later.

Hucksters in sheep's clothing<< previous | next >>Snarly Softie

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on November 6, 2006 at 9:52 PM

comment #1

JD says ...

With Fincher's brutal track record with studios (the Alien 3 debacle, years of work on projects that go into turnaround, etc.), I'm starting to think that he's a kind of Samuel Fuller for his generation. He makes pulpy, seemingly mainstream films, but he's lucky just to get them made, as they are so contrary to what the industry likes to put their time and money into. I'm sure Fincher is not allowed to talk about this situation, but it would be interesting to hear his take (from a secondary soure of some kind). He doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would care about Oscars, but in a year with so few worthy Oscar-caliber movies -- there are plenty of great movies, just not the kind that the Academy likes to honor -- Zodiac will be missed. Then again, this could turn out to be another over-anticipated dud. There have been a few of those lately. That would certainly explain Paramount's bizarre handling of its release date.

Posted by JD at November 6, 2006 10:50 PM

comment #2

D.Z. says ...

What's so bad about March? A film like that would be a flop in January, or at least lose market share to Hostel 2. Plus it gives Paramount more time to promote it. I don't see how Fincher's getting screwed on this one.

Posted by D.Z. at November 6, 2006 11:53 PM

comment #3

D.Z. says ...

Spoke too soon. It's going up against The Hills Have Eyes 2. *sigh*

Posted by D.Z. at November 6, 2006 11:55 PM

comment #4

Zac Bertschy says ...

Zelter, the audience for Zodiac is not the same as the teenage audience for Hills Have Eyes 2 or Hostel 2.

It's an entirely different audience. Fincher is an auteur, and his movies deserve special recognition. This is a shame, because everyone's dying to see what kind of film he's put together. And many think it deserves a shot at the Oscar race this year.

That you would equate it with shitty one-weekend horror flicks is... well, par for the course, I suppose.

Posted by Zac Bertschy at November 7, 2006 12:18 AM

comment #5

D.Z. says ...

If Zodiac's not going for the same audience, then why cast Jake Gyllenhall for one of the parts?

Posted by D.Z. at November 7, 2006 12:58 AM

comment #6

MB says ...

"If Zodiac's not going for the same audience, then why cast Jake Gyllenhall for one of the parts?"

That statement doesnÃ‚Â´t make sense. Or do you really think that the "Hills" and "Hostel" audience is interested in movies like Donnie Darko, Moonlight Mile, Proof or Brokeback Mountain?? Jake has worked together with actors like Susan Sarandon, Dustin Hofmann, Anthony Hopkins, Peter Saarsgard and Jamie Foxx and directors like Ang Lee and Sam Mendes and his next movie will be directed by Gavin Hood.

He is a serious actor and known as very choosy with his roles.

Posted by MB at November 7, 2006 3:00 AM

comment #7

D.Z. says ...

"Or do you really think that the "Hills" and "Hostel" audience is interested in movies like Donnie Darko, Moonlight Mile, Proof or Brokeback Mountain??"

Proof wasn't a Gyllenhaal film as much as a Paltrow film. And I'm not even sure they were aware Moonlight Mile existed.

Anyway, young people are the reason that Richard Kelly still has a career after Donnie Darko. And they're the reason that Brokeback was a hit, because it sure as fuck wasn't people like the geezers at the Academy who snubbed it for Best Film. They're also the reason Fincher still had a career after Fight Club. So obviously, Fincher and/or the studio are hoping Gyllenhall's following among the 18-25 demo which would normally avoid seeing dramas if not for him
will help sell Zodiac better than inserting some random young actor who would clash with the subject matter, like, say, Lohan or Affleck.

"He is a serious actor and known as very choosy with his roles."

So why did he choose Bubble Boy?

Posted by D.Z. at November 7, 2006 5:06 AM

comment #8

romeoisbleeding says ...

I am not happy that we have to wait that long. I have one simple question though if this is the case. Is a March date better for the movie than a January one? I have to think that if it is released in March it does give them more time to pimp it. It could get pretty lost in January with all the talk of Oscar movies etc. Does anyone here have an intelligent take on this? Is March a better time to release it than January? Thanx.

Posted by romeoisbleeding at November 7, 2006 8:03 AM

comment #9

Mike Ock says ...

Hey Jeff, get over it. Maybe the reason that Paramount isn't releasing it this year is because...IT'S NOT THAT FUCKING GOOD.

I know it's hard for you to believe that, considering Fincher's one of your darlings and all.

I guess the only way to get Jeff to whine even more about this, is if Fincher through a phone at some poor bastard making 10 bucks an hr.

Remember how before the Wicker Man came out you couldn't believe why the publicists on that film refused to screen it for critics?

You said something like "It surely can't be a quality issue". An auteuer like Neil Labute couldn't possibly put out a shitty film, right?

Well that's exactly what happened. Labute's version of The Wicker Man is one of the worst fucking movies I've ever seen. It's sure to be up for a ton of Razzies.

Oh and please, you guys need to cut it out with this autueur shit. You're beginnning to sound like a bunch of pretentious assholes.

Posted by Mike Ock at November 7, 2006 8:25 AM

comment #10

Mike Ock says ...

"Zelter, the audience for Zodiac is not the same as the teenage audience for Hills Have Eyes 2 or Hostel 2.

It's an entirely different audience. Fincher is an auteur, and his movies deserve special recognition.

That you would equate it with shitty one-weekend horror flicks is... well, par for the course, I suppose.

Posted by: Zac Bertschy at November 7, 2006 12:18 AM"

Hey Zac,

Are you sure you're not really Jeff Wells posting under a pseudonym? How is it an ENTIRELY different audience? One's a horror movie, the other's a thriller. How are they THAT MUCH DIFFERENT??

Do you think most people give a shit that Zodiac was directed by Fincher? People in the industry do, but others who pay their hard earned money do not.

And it's not because they're "rubes", or "don't get it", or "had less than a B average in high school", like Jeff has said in the past about people who don't rave about shit that he likes.

The audience for BOTH these movies is probably 17-34 yr olds, mostly male. Zodiac may skew a little bit older because of the cast. I'd say 17-40.

You guys need to take your tongues out of Fincher's ass.

Posted by Mike Ock at November 7, 2006 8:42 AM

comment #11

Sean says ...

"Zelter, the audience for Zodiac is not the same as the teenage audience for Hills Have Eyes 2 or Hostel 2.

"It's an entirely different audience. Fincher is an auteur,"

If you're going to throw around that pretentious useless word, you oughta be willing to concede that Eli Roth fits the definition of 'auteur' at least as well as Fincher; at least half of Fincher's movies have been work for hire, while Eli Roth continues to make exactly the films he wants to make the way he wants to make them.

The problem is, people who are pretentious enough to use the word 'auteur' refuse to use it to describe somebody whose films they don't like.

Posted by Sean at November 7, 2006 9:16 AM

comment #12

Mike Ock says ...

Great point Sean!!

Posted by Mike Ock at November 7, 2006 9:23 AM

comment #13

insidah says ...

I read the script last night and was left shaken. I took a stroll around my LA neighborhood afterward and I found myself very jumpy - nervous that the guy slowing his car down had a gun or something. The following bad thought crossed my mind - reviving the Zodiac killer myth could inspire similar lunatics. I don't know- I just think this whole thing is negative (meaning the movie, its purpose, its effect). Its only going to unsettle people. Maybe I'm getting old but I think films that serve this purpose are just bad for humanity. Especially with all the true horror currently happening in the world.

Posted by insidah at November 7, 2006 9:28 AM

comment #14

JoseRC says ...

Funny, the exact same thing has just happened to LONELY HEARTS, the serial-killer Todd Robinson flick with John Travolta, James Gandolfini and Salma Hayek that was said to have some award-worthy performances but that has just been moved to March 07.

Posted by JoseRC at November 7, 2006 10:38 AM

comment #15

D.Z. says ...

Mike: "One's a horror movie, the other's a thriller. How are they THAT MUCH DIFFERENT??"

Especially when you consider that Fincher wouldn't be where he is today, if it weren't for Seven.

Posted by D.Z. at November 7, 2006 11:15 AM

comment #16

T-maker says ...

"One's a horror movie, the other's a thriller. How are they THAT MUCH DIFFERENT??"

Spoken like someone who clearly doesn't understand either genre, much less appreciate them.

"Especially when you consider that Fincher wouldn't be where he is today, if it weren't for Seven."

Spoken like someone who doesn't understand much of anything.

"So why did he choose Bubble Boy?"

Because he hadn't established himself as a viable commodity yet? Because he was trying to be a working actor? For the same reason Paul Newman chose THE SILVER CHALICE? Because you have to get your foot in the door before you have the luxury to be choosy about what you do?

Posted by T-maker at November 7, 2006 12:03 PM

comment #17

ASD says ...

Mike Ock:

Zodiac isn't a thriller. Not even kissing cousins with Se7en. I have no idea how Paramount intends on selling this thing, but there are no conventional "thriller beats" to the film. Don't get me wrong, it's deeply unsettling but more in an omnipresent, the world has gone mad, eats at your soul sort of way. No car chases, no killers with knives unsheathed lurking around corners. The violence in the film is straight forward and disturbing but isn't played for cheep thrills.

The audience for the film is the same audience as Children of Men or Flags of Our Fathers or Babel any other high end drama that comes out this fall. I don't doubt Paramount will cut a sizzle piece to try and get 18 year olds on date night out to see it, but they're gonna despise the film. ThereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s really nothing sexy about it.

And on the subject of Roth: Just because all of his films come from a consistent, entitled frat boy mind-set doesn't make him an auteur. He's like Takashi Miike without the morality or social commentary. He's a rich kid from an affluent suburb who makes films about disposable character whose sole purpose is to be ground up into sausage meat for the amusement of the braying teenage boys in the audience. Your comparisons between him and Fincher are facile and I suspect you realize it.

Posted by ASD at November 7, 2006 12:13 PM

comment #18

The Winchester says ...

Jeff, regarding your source that says Zodiac's ready to screen next week, is that still valid? Fincher is notorious for tinkering with his films, and it could be an issue of that.

Also, the last Fincher flick released in March (Panic Room) did very well. $96 million. One of his better performing films. Not that release date and director means anything (unless you're directing a movie with the word Saw in the title).

and DZ- damn you for getting the Bubble Boy joke in before I did.

Posted by The Winchester at November 7, 2006 12:44 PM

comment #19

Josh Massey says ...

I think a March release shows Paramount has MORE faith in it than a January one does. And come on - the same Academy that named "Crash" Best Picture wouldn't even look in the way of "Zodiac" (no matter how good it was).

Posted by Josh Massey at November 7, 2006 4:25 PM

comment #20

milestogo says ...

Fight Club was supposed to come out in the summer, but ended up coming out in October (I think). Fincher used the extra time to tweak it and (in my opinion) perfect it.

Posted by milestogo at November 7, 2006 5:38 PM

comment #21