KJ

There have been several prominent films pushed back significantly from their original release dates in the last couple of months. Big delays are no longer a rarity, since release dates are set so far in advance, and production and post-production timelines can be unpredictable. If a big delay is announced close to the original release date, this usually signals that these films are in trouble, though not always. Last year the "G.I. Joe" sequel got bumped from last June to this March, which didn't seem to hurt its box office earnings. The sixth "Harry Potter" got bumped from a holiday release to a summer one, solely because Warner Brothers wanted another tentpole for that quarter. However there have been others, like "Jack the Giant Slayer," which made a move from last June to this February, and promptly went down in flames. So what films have been getting pushed around the slate recently? And what does it all mean?

"300: Rise of an Empire," was pushed from August 2, 2013, to March 7, 2014, but they released a teaser trailer roughly around the same time that seems to have been pretty well received. The original "300" was a surprise hit in March, 2007, so it makes sense that Warner Brothers would want to position the follow-up in the same timeframe. It's also facing less competition now for the action crowd than it would have in August. "300: Rise of an Empire" looks to be very effects heavy, I'm guessing that it's post-production issues that caused the delay. I suspect the same is true of "Elysium," which is coming in August, instead of March, where it was originally scheduled. Sony is probably hoping it can follow in the footstep of Neil Blomkamp's previous late summer hit, "District 9." Lately March and August have been about on par with each other for generating hits, so neither of these films seem to be any worse off than they were before.

The same can't be said for "I, Frankenstein" a horror/thriller comic-book adaptation starring Aaron Eckhart that got bounced from February, 2013 to September, 2013 to January 24, 2014. January and February are where the movies expected to be bombs are sent to detonate out of the public eye, so it's probably not wise to expect much from this one. "Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters" was a similar title that was finally released this January after repeated delays, and managed to break even, but nobody seemed to like it much. Also, things are not looking good for Detroit's favorite cyborg police officer. We were supposed to be getting that "Robo Cop" reboot this year, but Sony Pictures moved it back from August to a chilly weekend early February, 2014.

The long delayed "Sin City: A Dame to Kill For" was scheduled for October, but it's getting pushed back all the way to next August. By the time it's finally released, it will have been a nine year gap since the original. Something apparently has gone very wrong here, but there's no news yet as to exactly what's going on. I want to note that this is one of several recent sequels and prequels that are trying to jump start franchises for older, and more modest hits. These are a little riskier than most franchise films, which is probably why the studios have been quicker to move them around. Another one in the same vein is "Kick Ass 2," which was originally dated for a prime June slot, but got bumped back to August to avoid some stiff competition.

Wondering where that Steve Jobs biopic with Ashton Kutcher went? It was moved from April to August, apparently for more time to work on marketing strategy after a lackluster premiere at this year's Sundance Film Festival. I don't know how much luck it's going to have as late summer counterprogramming. Meanwhile, the Dreamworks animated feature "Mr. Peabody & Sherman" was moved from this November to next March, escaping a crowded holiday slate and filling a hole left by the repeatedly delayed "Me and My Shadow," which was dropped from the schedule entirely and has gone back into development. Dreamworks Animation's ambitious release slate from the end of last year looked too good to be true, and I guess it was.

However, it's important to remember that delays aren't always bad news. "Captain Phillips," starring Tom Hanks as the captain of a ship hijacked by Somali pirates, was pushed from March to October, in order to position it for Oscar contention. True life caper story "Argo" was also released in October last year, before it went on to win the Best Picture statuette. Alfonso Cuaron's "Gravity" comes out around the same time, after a delay of nearly a year, and may also be an awards contender. And then there was the under-the-radar "Now You See Me," which Summit was originally prepared to dump in January. Then it got moved to March, and then late May, where it has quietly become an unexpected summer sleeper hit.

Finally, I continue to keep an eye on "47 Ronin," which was originally set to premiere in November of 2012, and is now set for February of 2014 after significant retooling and reshoots. Who the hell greenlit a samurai epic starring Keanu Reeves in the first place?
---

The first trailer for the second "Hobbit" movie was released last week, confirming some of my worst fears. I wasn't too happy with the first installment, "An Unexpected Journey," and now "The Desolation of Smaug" looks like it has many of the same problems. There are going to be appearances by characters who weren't in the book, including Legolas from "Lord of the Rings," and an entirely invented female warrior elf, Tauriel, played by Evangeline Lily. Minor character Radagast the Brown, who was my least favorite part of the last film, is back for another round. This means more subplots and digressions and attention taken away from the once straightforward quest story of Bilbo Baggins and the dwarves. Even the brief appearance of Smaug the Dragon at the end of the trailer wasn't enough to erase my doubts.

I find myself anticipating a day, probably late in 2015 after all the "Hobbit" movies have been released on home media, when some enterprising Tolkein fan will be able to take the trilogy and edit out all the extraneous, invented content, all the fanservice, and all the indulgences, and carve out a tight, lean, faithful adaptation of the "Hobbit" that will only take a fraction of the time to watch. In short, I want a fan edit, defined by Wikipedia as "a version of a film modified by a viewer, that removes, reorders, or adds material in order to create a new interpretation of the source material." Copyright law prevents legal distribution of these creations, of course, but fan edits have become quite popular in recent years, particularly the efforts of several enterprising fans who have tried to improve the notorious "Star Wars" prequels. One of the earliest and most famous fan edits is a trimmed down version of "The Phantom Menace," known as "The Phantom Edit" that was passed around Hollywood in the early 2000s, created by an anonymous editor who was eventually revealed to be Mike J. Nichols. Now there's a thriving community of fan editors, who have produced alternate versions of everything from "Austin Powers" to "Eyes Wide Shut."

With the growing popularity of video editing software and remix activities like vidding and mashup videos, fan edits feel like a logical extension of the same creative impulse. There are so many films out there that cause consternation among films fans, particularly the most impassioned ones who spot all the little errors and mistakes, and can't help but wish that they could just go in themselves and fix things. Or those who disagree with how a beloved media property has been adapted, and want to mitigate what they perceive to be unfortunate damage. Or those who just want to have some fun and see if they can reintegrate all the deleted scenes from their favorite comedy back into the movie. After all, who hasn't wished they could fix the ending to "A.I. Artificial Intelligence" or that there was a version of "Blade Runner" or "Legend" that just gave you all the footage from all the different cuts? The biggest fan editors are professional directors, of course. George Lucas coming back after twenty years to tinker with the original "Star Wars" trilogy provided the example for many of these fan editors to follow.

Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" franchise has already been targeted by fan editors, of course. "The Two Towers" in particular has always had its detractors, who weren't happy with some of the departures Jackson made from the original novel. I never found these differences distracting enough to impact my enjoyment of this movie, but the "Hobbit" film is a different matter. In my review, I pointed out that it felt like we were watching an Extended Edition cut of the film, with all the extra material that would only be of interest to hardcore fans left in. I was sure there was a good version of "The Hobbit" somewhere in there. Since we already had the Extended Edition, I wondered if Jackson might considering doing a more stripped down, faithful cut as an extra on DVD sets. Instead, "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey: Extended Edition" is going to be released on home media later this year with an extra 20-25 minutes of footage, and I can't imagine how much more of a slog the film is going to be with even more unnecessary material crammed in.

Fan edits haven't really caught on in the mainstream, but I can imagine them getting more traction if we see more situations like "The Hobbit," where these movies are getting padded out to the point where it's seriously affecting their watchability. I really hope I'm wrong abut "The Desolation of Smaug," and the third "Hobbit" film, "There and Back Again." But if I'm not, I can see myself resorting to fan edits in order to revisit these films in the future - as a new way to just skip ahead to the good stuff.
---