Zodiac to '07

Comments: 5
terometer
0%
Strike Back below!
by: Mike Sampson Jun. 12, 2006

One of my "must see" films of 2006 has just turned into one of my "must see" films of 2007. David Fincher's serial killer suspense flick ZODIAC has been pushed back from a fall date later this year to January 2007. What gives? Isn't January where bad movies go to die? Didn't ELEKTRA open up in January? Paramount didn't offer up an explanation to the move but since it never had a solid release date, they could easily just say there was no delay as it's release was never set. I would think this would be a perfect October/Halloween type release and to me a January date doesn't make sense but perhaps there's more here to the story than we know. It's just disappointing to wait this long for another David Fincher movie only to find out it's been delayed again. Stay tuned for more...

Source: Paramount Pictures

5 discussions Expand all
Show Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Most Popular
 
+0
Vote Up Vote Down
brechtsky
11:21PM on 06/12/2006 Add as a friend | MFC profile
question
Does anyone know what the last day this year a film can be released in order to be considered for oscars?

And where is this jan 19th date coming from?
Does anyone know what the last day this year a film can be released in order to be considered for oscars?

And where is this jan 19th date coming from?
 
+0
Vote Up Vote Down
Ki'esha Foxx
8:30PM on 06/12/2006 Add as a friend | MFC profile
Well, Underworld: Evolution opened January 20 of this year and it made good money. As did Hostel, even though I heard it was crap.

By the way, I could be WAAYYYY wrong but didn't something titled Zodiac open earlier this year?
Well, Underworld: Evolution opened January 20 of this year and it made good money. As did Hostel, even though I heard it was crap.

By the way, I could be WAAYYYY wrong but didn't something titled Zodiac open earlier this year?
 
+0
Vote Up Vote Down
droidguy1119
7:31PM on 06/12/2006 Add as a friend | MFC profile
NO! This movie better not suck. This better not be even the remotest indication of its quality.
NO! This movie better not suck. This better not be even the remotest indication of its quality.
 
+0
Vote Up Vote Down
ButchTheBoxer16
5:31PM on 06/12/2006 Add as a friend | MFC profile
Release Date
It did have an official release date: November 22nd 2006, but now it is January 19th 2007. I don't see why they took it out of November, a prime month for Oscar contenders to the "tied for the worst movie month of the year" January. August being the other worst month. This was in my Top 5 most anticipated films this year. Ugh.
It did have an official release date: November 22nd 2006, but now it is January 19th 2007. I don't see why they took it out of November, a prime month for Oscar contenders to the "tied for the worst movie month of the year" January. August being the other worst month. This was in my Top 5 most anticipated films this year. Ugh.
 
+0
Vote Up Vote Down
JH's corpse
2:39PM on 06/12/2006 Add as a friend | MFC profile
January is a month dominated by family films cause it's straight after christmas and people want to go off and pollute themselves with shite movies to show that they have the power to do nothing and are gonna utilise it too no end....plus there's nothing good on tv and the kids have already broken all the shit they got for christmas....anyhow my point is releasing a david fincher pic around thi...
January is a month dominated by family films cause it's straight after christmas and people want to go off and pollute themselves with shite movies to show that they have the power to do nothing and are gonna utilise it too no end....plus there's nothing good on tv and the kids have already broken all the shit they got for christmas....anyhow my point is releasing a david fincher pic around this time will only secure it's snubbing out at the box offices. i think anyways.