Richard Kelly's 'The Box' Delayed
Filed under: Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Warner Brothers, RumorMonger, Distribution, Newsstand
I hate to spread totally speculative bad buzz, but if any advance development merits the term "not a good sign," it's a movie getting its release date pushed back seven months to early September, the year's most notorious dumping ground. Yep -- Richard Kelly's The Box is now scheduled to be released by Warner Bros. on September 11, 2009.Now, to be clear, its original February release date wasn't exactly a plum spot either. But occasionally something sneaks through early in the year -- think Cloverfield. The few weeks around Labor Day are where movies go to die. The only recent exception I can think of is 3:10 to Yuma.
I'm hoping against hope that the switch isn't actually a vote of no confidence, since a Twilight Zone-style sci-fi film from the director of Donnie Darko sounds fantastic. If it is a low-confidence move, I'm hoping it's a case of a studio not knowing a good movie from a hole in the wall. That happens a fair amount, don't you know. Richard Kelly could use a boost after Southland Tales sank last year.
The Box is about a suburban couple who receive a mysterious wooden box with a single button. The box comes with a promise that if one of them presses the button in the next 24 hours, they will get a million dollars -- but somewhere in the world, someone will die. The film stars James Marsden, Cameron Diaz and Frank Langella.
[hat tip: Cinema Blend]
EXCLUSIVE: Creepy New One-Sheet for IFC's 'Fear(s) of the Dark'!
EXCLUSIVE: Brand-New Poster for Ridley Scott's 'Body of Lies'!
Comic Creators Respond to Warner Bros' 'Dark Superman' Idea
EXCLUSIVE: New Photos from Spike Lee's 'Miracle at St. Anna'
Vin Diesel Will Press On With 'Riddick' Sequels
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg){kind=spacer}
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
6-25-2008 @ 11:33AM
Kurt said...
I can't help but think that maybe Kelly doesn't quite have the chops we assumed and that Donnie Darko was kind of a fluke.
Reply
6-25-2008 @ 12:24PM
TheGuyInThePJ's said...
This just seems odd that you would say "I hate to spread totally speculative bad buzz," when thats exactly what you're doing.
A studio moving a film from January/February release slot to a Late Summer/Early Fall release slot is never a Bad Sign. Jan/Feb is known for being the Crap film time-frame(minus the one film you named)
I can tell you that the word coming for the Warner Bros lot is that they do have high hopes for the film and thats why they decide to hold it for a FALL release instead of dumping it in Jan/Feb.
Though the movie is far from done with much of the music needing to be mixed in and a lot of the effects still not complete. Hopefully any Test Screening audience members will take that into consideration if they see actors wearing green paint(on their face) in the film.
Reply
6-25-2008 @ 3:06PM
Eugene Novikov said...
>>>>
A studio moving a film from January/February release slot to a Late Summer/Early Fall release slot is never a Bad Sign. Jan/Feb is known for being the Crap film time-frame(minus the one film you named)
This is nonsense. January and February are a bit of a post-Christmas lull, but with the exception of maybe the first week of the new year, studios are still competing for audiences, and movies regularly open big -- Cloverfield, Jumper, Spiderwick Chronicles, The Messengers, Ghost Rider, etc., etc. Early September is a dumping ground for the simple reason that NO ONE GOES TO THE MOVIES. I mean come on -- go through Box Office Mojo's yearly charts (e.g. http://boxofficemojo.com/weekend/?yr=2007&p=.htm) and take a look at the aggregate top 12 numbers for the couple of weekends after Labor Day.
I'm glad to hear WB isn't publicly giving up on the film, I guess (it would be pretty stunning if they did), but the notion that they're moving it to September 11th because they think it's awesome is just silly.
Reply
6-25-2008 @ 4:20PM
TheGuyInThePJ's said...
I have... one needs to only go back a few years to see a film named Emily Rose(2005) made $30 million dollars opening the same weekend.
You may find it silly, sir... but the WB moved the film from it's place-holder release date after they had a chance to overlook the 2009 slate. At which point they decided that a Fall release date would complement the film much better, as thats when they originally wanted to release the film for 2008, but they didn't have the film far enough along to get the market ball rolling in time. I'll admit the Sept. 11, 2009 date seems kind of odd, but maybe that was a consciuos decision. The first REAL test screening for the film is tomorrow night so it's a early to think that Warner is down playing the film already. How about giving the film a real chance to prove if it's worth the bad buzz this so called Delayed release date is getting? (As if films that are scheduled for future year releases don't usually get bounced around anyways).
6-25-2008 @ 3:41PM
Cal said...
Ugh, Richard Kelly is so damn overrated. Wake me up when we no longer have to hear from him....
Reply
6-25-2008 @ 5:53PM
Chris said...
"Twilight Zone-style"? This plotline comes *directly* from "Button, Button", an episode from the 1986 version of the series.
Reply
7-10-2008 @ 10:11AM
The Mutt said...
9/11 is actually my birthday. (I know!)
I remember last year...
I wanted to go to see a movie. But then I thought...
"Say, it's mid-September. Any movie in the theater must suck. It clearly must suck worse than a movie released on a holiday. It must suck worse than a movie released in the summer. It has to suck compared to a movie released around Christmas. "
So I didn't go. Instead, I stayed home and watched a direct-to-DVD horror movie. I thought it sucked, but I was obviously wrong.
If it had sucked, it would have gotten a $25 million dollar advertising budget and been released in September.
Silly me. You know, one of these days I'm going to stop going to movies when the media tells me I am supposed to be going, and just go when I want to see a movie. Is that allowed?
Reply