“Cabin in the Woods” seemed like it was going to be a genuine genre gem. The horror flick, which has been shrouded in secrecy (besides some hilarious Comic Con posters that said stuff like “If something is chasing you… Split up.”), was co-written by “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” braintrust Joss Whedon and “Cloverfield” scribe Drew Goddard, with Goddard also directing. Goddard was also responsible for some of the best later-year “Buffy” episodes as well as some choice hours of “Lost” (including the first season “Outlaws,” when Sawyer was terrorized by the boar). They are both very smart dudes, and the cast, rounded out by youngsters like “Dollhouse” actor Fran Kranz as well as veterans like Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford, was fairly solid.
We heard the studio was very happy with it, that there were a bunch of big tie-ins planned, etc. And now comes word from Shock Till You Drop that the movie has been bumped by the studio – by a full year! The film was supposed to be out on February 5th, 2010 and will now bow on January 14th, 2011. That’s a huge fucking bump.
The official reason given is that they want to spend a good six months to convert the movie into 3D. To which we say – WHY? The movie wasn’t conceived in 3D. Is 3D really that important to sell tickets? If the movie played so well in 2D, which, supposedly, it did, then the 3D seems beyond superfluous. Are they going to add new scenes of somebody playing with a yoyo into the camera? These are the questions begging to be answered.
Again: as soon as this 3D horror boom ends, we’ll be happy. How many times have you found yourself revisiting “Jaws 3D” or “Amityville 3D?” Exactly. And this summer’s “The Final Destination” killed a seemingly unstoppable and clever horror franchise with an overdose of cheesy ‘shit flying at you,’ that rendered anything that wasn’t flying at you beyond dull.
We find this whole “Cabin in the Woods” thing a bit odd, especially since its been getting nothing but great buzz. And we bet our good friends at Chronicle Books, who had two lavish tie-in titles ready to go for the film’s release, are seething at this announcement. Also, for a movie that’s done such a good job at keeping itself secret, how long is that going to last if they’re going to tinker with it for another year? The great thing about “Cloverfield” was that it was about six months between the first teaser and the movie’s release, which didn’t quell the rampant online speculation but at least didn’t give it as much time to get out of control. Expect geek sites to have a field day with this thing… for a whole ‘nother year. [ShockTilYour Drop] – Drew Taylor
I really don't think the 30% extra cost for a single 3D ticket will end up being that much of a box office boost either given the extra cost adding 3D presumably requires (how much more exactly does adding some 3D cost?). If 3D is pretty cheap to add then it's interesting.
"The Final Destination 3D" cost $40million and brought in $65.6mil domestically plus another $85.7mil abroad ($151 mil total). That's pretty good I guess.
And the 3D additions seemed like a decent novelty for FD-3D on the way to becoming a craze, but when I see the $14 dollar ticket compared to $10, I'm out and will see something else.
I wonder if the number of cheaper regular price tickets sold would have been greater for Final Destination than the $14 3D tickets.
Domestic B.O.:
Final Destination 1 (2000)
– $53mil on $23 budget
Final Destination 2 (2003)
– $47mil on NA budget
Final Destination 3 (2006)
– $54mil on $23 budget
Final Destination 3 (2009)
– $65mil on $40 budget
Worldwide Total:
FD1 = $113
FD2 = $90
FD3 = $113
FD4 = $151
I'm sure the marketing costs haven't gotten cheaper over the last 9 years either.
I can't wait until this fad drops. Maybe the higher priced tickets even take away from concession sales at the theaters?
Joss Whedon is so fucking painfully overrated. Loved by pop culturalists or the movie/TV equivalents of Stereogum = MOR
Having read the script, I would have to say "Cabin in the Woods" is a very odd beast. Without giving anything away, I would say it struck me as a better concept for a video game than a movie. In fact, if you told me that the movie was nothing more than a 90 minute trojan horse brand introduction for a new gaming franchise, I would not be surprised. I think that may be where the real money is in all of this. The draft I read really doesn't have a lot of sequel potential.
So if you view the movie as nothing more than a revenue neutral commercial for a much larger enterprise, 3D could make sense if it is relatively cheap and helps create "event" buzz around the brand.