Up comming movies I don't know about.

[barsoomcore]

I thought that Kill Bill 2 was originally going to be out in Feb. Now I have to wait until April.

Anyone know why its release got delayed? Or did I only dream that it was originally set to come out in Feb.?

No, your recollection is correct. No really strong reason was given. I suspect two contributing factors:

Poor performance by Part 1 indicated a lack of market interest. The current plan is to release Part 1 on DVD and follow it up quickly with Part 2 -- hopefully increasing demand and broadening the potential market for Part 2. If they'd released it in February, only people who had seen Part 1 in the theatre (which was a smaller-than-hoped-for number) would go see Part 2.

Poor performance by the third Matrix film, which was widely expected to perform very well, has dampened the enthusiasm for multi-part films sparked by the ever-increasing revenues of the Lord of the Rings movies. I think with Lord of the Rings, and then the second Matrix film, people got a little excited about the potential of multi-part movies and frankly, I think that's one of the reasons Weinstein suggested splitting Kill Bill in the first place -- in the hopes of capitalizing on what looked like a market demand for longer storylines. Now that Lord of the Rings looks like a one-off rather than the leading wave of a new trend, people are going back to more conservative release schedules.

I'm disappointed I have to wait to see the rest of Kill Bill, too. I expect the plan will somewhat backfire -- people will probably resist buying the DVD, knowing that a "box set" is likely just around the corner, who'd buy Part 1 by itself?

 

[Desdichado]

Now that Lord of the Rings looks like a one-off rather than the leading wave of a new trend, people are going back to more conservative release schedules.

It doesn't have to be; if only Hollywood would make some multipart monsters that were as good as LotR. I mean, Matrix had potential, but the third movie was a bit out of left field. It didn't even feel like part of the same series as the first two movies.

 

[Welverin]

It doesn't have to be; if only Hollywood would make some multipart monsters that were as good as LotR. I mean, Matrix had potential, but the third movie was a bit out of left field. It didn't even feel like part of the same series as the first two movies.

Quality's the big reason, but I suspect timing had a lot to do with it. There was a year between each LotR movie but only about six months between Reloaded and Revolutions, and thus not much time to get over the disappointment a lot of people had for Revolutions.

 

[barsoomcore]

Quality's the big reason, but I suspect timing had a lot to do with it.

Thing is, the REASON why it flopped isn't really the point. Just the fact that it didn't perform to expectations is enough to make people worry. They thought they saw a trend, they tried to jump on that trend, they thought they saw a DIFFERENT trend, they tried to jump off.

What makes LotR a one-off is that it's so good.

Which is a desperately sad state of affairs, when you think about it.

 

[Desdichado]

Thing is, the REASON why it flopped isn't really the point. Just the fact that it didn't perform to expectations is enough to make people worry. They thought they saw a trend, they tried to jump on that trend, they thought they saw a DIFFERENT trend, they tried to jump off.

What makes LotR a one-off is that it's so good.

Which is a desperately sad state of affairs, when you think about it.

True, but that's what I'm lamenting. If the Matrix, or Kill Bill had been better movies, and had even a shadow of Lord of the Rings' Box Office power, then we would see more of these kinds of things, not less. Ultimately, I think you're right -- the reason is immaterial.

But I wonder if Hollywood often doesn't even consider movie quality. They treat movies like formulae in which box office grosses can be estimated by a checklist of movie content. The movie's quality is the wildcard; the variable that can't be estimated, so it is assumed (falsely and disingeniously, IMO) to be negligible in effect.