"Harry Potter" fans are seething. "Twilight" devotees are in a state of giddy rapture. Will Ferrell's getting nervous. And someone had better perform CPR on the editors of Entertainment Weekly.
All because Warner Bros. decided last week that it needed one more blockbuster for the summer of 2009. The studio's announcement that "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" would be pushed back from its long-planned Nov. 21 release this year to July 17 next year was the pebble -- more like the large rock -- that started an avalanche of second-guessing and opportunistic reschedulingDriven by greed, hype and hope, the business of exactly when to release a movie can seem inscrutable to outsiders. The sixth big-screen entry in the hugely successful "Potter" franchise was set to have the Thanksgiving weekend to itself; no studio was foolish enough to release a competing film against such a behemoth. With "Prince" decamped to 2009, though, a sudden void existed. Hollywood abhors a vacuum: Immediately, Disney moved its 3-D family cartoon "Bolt" from Nov. 26 to Nov. 21. Then baby studio Summit Entertainment decided to move "Twilight" -- the first film based on Stephenie Meyer's vampire novels and a movie awaited by millions of mostly young, mostly female, mostly panting readers -- to Nov. 21.
That lets the one-time competition for "Twilight," 20th Century Fox's big-budget remake of the 1951 classic "The Day the Earth Stood Still," starring Keanu Reeves, have the weekend of Dec. 12 to itself. Good news for Reeves, bad news for Ferrell, whose blockbuster "Land of the Lost" -- another remake -- is now in a July 17 stare-down with "Prince." Someone has to blink, and it probably will be Universal, which doubtless has "Land of the Lost" theme-park blueprints
already drawn up.
Why this insane chess game? In a word: profits. Two words, really: maximized profits. The decision to move "Half-Blood Prince" came because Warner looked to the future and saw the ravages of the past. Specifically, the 2007 writers strike had left the studio's 2009 summer slate lacking a "tentpole" -- a big event picture that can drive the planning, spending and strategic release patterns of the company's entire output.
The dearth must have been critical -- despite Warner's plans to release "Terminator Salvation" in May '09 -- because no studio moves a tentpole at the last minute without a reason. Too many of the ancillary deals that make up the real business of the modern entertainment industry depend on a release date established early and adhered to. "The Dark Knight" was a July 18, 2008, release as of May 2007, because four scenes shot in the Imax process meant the film had a hard date in Imax theaters. And because "Knight" was anchored in place, other studios could plan around it, as could the various licensors who cling to a movie like remoras: video-game companies, toy manufacturers, fast-food chains, etc.
Who knows? Maybe Warner thought it had made enough money with "The Dark Knight" for 2008 and decided to spread the wealth to '09. (All right, I'm kidding.) More likely, the studio had one strong year and didn't want the following year to pale in comparison. The uprooting of "Half-Blood Prince" was sudden and unexpected, and, among others, it left the studio's corporate cousin, Entertainment Weekly, with a "Harry Potter"-themed Fall Preview issue on newsstands and serious egg on its face.
The release-date game remains a cross between 3-D chess and a high-stakes poker game, with ticket buyers passively looking on. For all the bluffing and sword rattling, eventually studios find a date for all films.
Just as long as it's not Nov. 19, 2010. That's when "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part I" is slated to open.
All because Warner Bros. decided last week that it needed one more blockbuster for the summer of 2009. The studio's announcement that "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" would be pushed back from its long-planned Nov. 21 release this year to July 17 next year was the pebble -- more like the large rock -- that started an avalanche of second-guessing and opportunistic reschedulingDriven by greed, hype and hope, the business of exactly when to release a movie can seem inscrutable to outsiders. The sixth big-screen entry in the hugely successful "Potter" franchise was set to have the Thanksgiving weekend to itself; no studio was foolish enough to release a competing film against such a behemoth. With "Prince" decamped to 2009, though, a sudden void existed. Hollywood abhors a vacuum: Immediately, Disney moved its 3-D family cartoon "Bolt" from Nov. 26 to Nov. 21. Then baby studio Summit Entertainment decided to move "Twilight" -- the first film based on Stephenie Meyer's vampire novels and a movie awaited by millions of mostly young, mostly female, mostly panting readers -- to Nov. 21.
That lets the one-time competition for "Twilight," 20th Century Fox's big-budget remake of the 1951 classic "The Day the Earth Stood Still," starring Keanu Reeves, have the weekend of Dec. 12 to itself. Good news for Reeves, bad news for Ferrell, whose blockbuster "Land of the Lost" -- another remake -- is now in a July 17 stare-down with "Prince." Someone has to blink, and it probably will be Universal, which doubtless has "Land of the Lost" theme-park blueprints
already drawn up.Why this insane chess game? In a word: profits. Two words, really: maximized profits. The decision to move "Half-Blood Prince" came because Warner looked to the future and saw the ravages of the past. Specifically, the 2007 writers strike had left the studio's 2009 summer slate lacking a "tentpole" -- a big event picture that can drive the planning, spending and strategic release patterns of the company's entire output.
The dearth must have been critical -- despite Warner's plans to release "Terminator Salvation" in May '09 -- because no studio moves a tentpole at the last minute without a reason. Too many of the ancillary deals that make up the real business of the modern entertainment industry depend on a release date established early and adhered to. "The Dark Knight" was a July 18, 2008, release as of May 2007, because four scenes shot in the Imax process meant the film had a hard date in Imax theaters. And because "Knight" was anchored in place, other studios could plan around it, as could the various licensors who cling to a movie like remoras: video-game companies, toy manufacturers, fast-food chains, etc.
Who knows? Maybe Warner thought it had made enough money with "The Dark Knight" for 2008 and decided to spread the wealth to '09. (All right, I'm kidding.) More likely, the studio had one strong year and didn't want the following year to pale in comparison. The uprooting of "Half-Blood Prince" was sudden and unexpected, and, among others, it left the studio's corporate cousin, Entertainment Weekly, with a "Harry Potter"-themed Fall Preview issue on newsstands and serious egg on its face.
The release-date game remains a cross between 3-D chess and a high-stakes poker game, with ticket buyers passively looking on. For all the bluffing and sword rattling, eventually studios find a date for all films.
Just as long as it's not Nov. 19, 2010. That's when "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part I" is slated to open.
Posts
