Bryan Singer's Valkyrie Gets Moved to 2009
Just after bringing up Bryan Singer's WWII movie Valkyrie a few weeks ago, questioning its lack of buzz, it seems United Artist has pushed back the release from October to February 2009. Either this sounds like a new video game (this is its second release date push) or they've run into some huge issues internally, whether it be lack of confidence or production delays. The official word is that "the studio wanted to take advantage of an opening in the schedule for the President's Day weekend" but we all know better than that. What happened to Bryan Singer?
Valkyrie's official new release date is now February 13th, 2009. It was originally set for June 27th this summer, then moved to October 3rd, and now pushed again all the way to 2009. Here is MGM's statement on the decision:
"MGM is proud and excited to be presenting 'Valkyrie,' and because of that we want to give it the best launch possible," said Clark Woods, President of Domestic Distribution of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, which is distributing the movie domestically. "When an opening became available for President's Day Weekend, we seized the opportunity. Having seen a lot of the film and how great it is going to play once it's finished, moving into a big holiday weekend is the right move."
Apparently there is an ever-growing battle against Valkyrie from a number of critics or other industry gossip reporters. A recent article from Fox News' Roger Friedman claims that "Valkyrie is a set up for not only failure, but ridicule. Take for example this line of dialogue that is spoken to Cruise/Claus by one of his Nazi associates: 'When the SS catches you they will pull you apart like warm bread.'" I'm not sure why there is an increased amount of disdain towards Valkyrie, but its obvious the studio has felt the pressure and caved in. And I was really looking forward to seeing it in October.
What happened to Bryan Singer? Why is Valkyrie under attack?
I really have to say that I think "Valkyrie" is not under attack because of Bryan Singer's involvement, but because of Cruise's. After his split with Paramount in 2006 and his subsequent descent into the mire known as "being completely insane," it was only a matter of time before Americans started lashing out at Cruise in a big way, and I think we're still in the initial stages of that period.
Andrew on Apr 7, 2008
I'm with you Alex. I thought the idea and the union of Cruise and Singer would've made for box office and creative gold. I don't know if it's so much Singer but Cruise hasn't been too box office friendly. People can't seem to get Scientology and jumping on a couch out of their heads. I thought the trailer that's been out for awhile was well put together and it seemed like a pretty intriguing story from the man that made X-Men. Hopefully this delay is for the right reasons.
kit on Apr 7, 2008
Well, that probably pushes it out of Oscar consideration, so the studio must not think it's that good.
Zach D. on Apr 7, 2008
Well I thought it looked alright. I guess that release date ruins its chances for an Oscar, which i thought they were hoping for all along.
Ryan on Apr 7, 2008
I've only seen the trailer the one time but wasn't Cruise the only one with an American accent in the film? I seem to remember being pretty excited until I heard him speak and was pulled back to reality. At least give him a British accent like the rest of the cast. No one that could convincingly portray a German was available for this film?
Shane on Apr 7, 2008
R Murdoch personnal campaign against Cruise, with his crappy tabloids is taking weights. Cruise is also very much targeted by big pharma. Singer got a big flop with Superman Returns, but I prefer him to direct this kind of movies. Cruise has a big hit with MI:III worldwilde, way more than Xman, SR, or Batman begins. But he is the martyr of media and now mindless media drones call anonymous. I'm so mad at this news.
fiona on Apr 7, 2008
It seems as though Cruise has been on a downward spiral recently. His erratic, off camera behavior and his Scientology banter has managed to turn some people off. In addition to this, his strange movie choices have only added insult to injury--especially after the disaster of "Lions for Lambs". I still have a glimmer of hope for "Valkyrie" though. I think that the coupling of Bryan Singer and Tom Cruise could very well evolve into something pretty original, if not igniting controversy due to "Valkyrie's" subject matter. At best, this flick could very well attract a small cult following, if nothing else. I still wish Cruise and Singer the best!
Spider on Apr 7, 2008
Why would the professional critics, the people who most care about cinema, turn increasingly negative about Singer? Maybe it's because he's a sellout, who abandoned edgy cinema to churn out action movies? Maybe the critics had hoped Singer would aspire to be the next Robert Altman instead of striving to be the next Micheal Bay. This is only the beginning of the turning tide against Singer. As soon as he picks his next comic book to film, cinema lovers can flush Singer down the toilet for good. Too bad Ghost Rider has already been made. It sounds right up Singers' alley now.
Kelly on Apr 7, 2008
When in October was it opening? Early or late? If it was late it may just be a tactical box-office move considering Quatum of Solace opens globally early Nov., which is obviously going to be huge. If it was early Oct. then who knows? Sure got problems though.
sleepykid on Apr 8, 2008
So much for Superman even having a chance being shot this year. 2010 yay!
Ivan on Apr 8, 2008
February is a dumping ground. Valkyrie is screwed. It's probably too early to blame either Singer or Cruise, but Cruise has the most to lose if this thing is a turkey. So much for that positive buzz surrounding his cameo in Tropic Thunder. Wasn't that supposed to salvage his career?
Tom Brazelton on Apr 8, 2008
Superman Returns was pretty poor in my opinion, hence the lack of faith in Singer and I believe the studio are also losing confidence in Cruise. There is no need really. The guy is a great actor and seemingly a nice guy. Listen to his commentary on MI: III and he seems to have nothing but genuinely nice things to say about his colleagues. Some might say this is controlling but if being polite and gracious is controlling then more people should try it! Ok he might follow a movement that we either don't like or understand but how come everyone is turning against him because of his beliefs? Do this to a Jew or a Christian and it would be considered totally out of order. Scientology though is considered fair game. MI: III was the best in the series and I think the studio need to have a little more faith rather than pandering to the chin rubbing intelligencia who are telling us who we should and shouldn't like.
Payne by name on Apr 8, 2008
maybe tom is just not that exciting anymore? i mean, the mission impossible series was cool, but thats how i will always think of him, i dont really see anything exciting about this movie. superman, meh it was pretty, but long and kinda boring. Dont get me wrong, i love comics and all that, but it could have done so much more. Maybe this is the same way, long and boring in the end? maybe audiences are tired of the WWII movie genre for now?
taurinh on Apr 8, 2008
Payne - I can't believe you're suggesting that Tom's "persecution" as a Scientologist is out of bounds compared to that of a Christian or a Jew. Scientology is a dangerous *cult* that forces it's believers to PAY MONEY in order to achieve higher stages of enlightenment. It purposfully obscures it's practices to people outside of its influence and is highly letigious against organizations or individuals that question them. I don't think the fact that he's a Scientologist is what's been leading to his downfall. It's his hubris and instability in interviews over the last few years that have lead people to look at him in a different light. Cruise is free to believe what he wants, but to compare the public's reaction to his beliefe in Scientology as unfair compared to an actor if Christian or Jewish faith is ridiculous.
Tom Brazelton on Apr 8, 2008
Tom Brazelton - Nailed it down exactly! Both about the *cult* and Cruise, especially the line "It's his hubris..." Just think about how many actors are Scientologists and nobody really cares, at least not enough for it to affect their movie openings. It's Cruise's hubris. If you want to know how that hubris is fed watch the "Indoctrination Video." If you don't want to watch the full thing, after it loads skip to the last minute. http://gawker.com/5002269/the-cruise-indoctrination-video-scientology-tried-to-suppress
Nunya on Apr 8, 2008
I've seen that video. He basically talks about how great the world would be without non-believers. I can't remember the term, but Scientologists call the rest of us something specific. It's their goal to either convert us or remove us from their path to enlightenment.
Tom Brazelton on Apr 8, 2008
One word: Cruise. Actually, "Cult Cruise" would be more appropriate. That's two word, though.
avoidz on Apr 8, 2008
@Tom Brazelton I believe the term is "Suppressive Person" or "SP."
John D. on Apr 8, 2008
"Suppressive Person." That's the one! Thanks, John D. What other belief system goes out of its way to label those who don't believe in their faith as "suppressive?" Sure, there are heretics and non-believers. Blasphemers. Whatever. But most organized religions don't blame other people specifically for the failure of their followers to reach enlightenment. They tag it on "the devil" or what have you. A figurehead, but not an individual you can focus your loathing on.
Tom Brazelton on Apr 9, 2008
"Scientology is a dangerous *cult* that forces it's believers to PAY MONEY" - People don't have to pay if they don't want to just like they don't have to believe if they don't want to. You have to make allowances for peoples free will you know. And of course it's not like you never see mid west christian bible thumpers begging for money on TV and in huge auditoria to help cleanse you of the devil and then go and bang a couple of hookers. If people are going to interview Tom and ask about his private life, as opposed to the film he is promoting, then naturally he will talk about it. Let's face it now that the media have picked up on it, it probably comes up in every interview. Scientology does not threaten the fabric of society, they are not trying to blow people up or take over the world. Ok I might not agree with them but I also disagree with Islam's treatment of women and the genital mutilation of Judaism but if they want to do it, then so be it. You either have tolerance for someones beliefs or not. It's funny how it's the liberals that always seem to be the last to grasp this fundamental.
Payne by name on Apr 9, 2008
On Cruise: People may not like or agree with his religion, but since when is that a reason to discriminate against anyone. That's just bigoted. He's known to be someone who thanks everyone on a set, from the janitor up. People have said he's a kind, giving charitable individual who treats everyone around him with the utmost respect. This isn't something that he has to do. It's just something that makes him decent. On the film front, just look at his filmography. He's done some great roles in some great films. He's done some timelessly iconic roles, too. The hatred towards him has become utterly vicious, and I think it should stop immediately. On Scientology: By certain estimations, there are crazier religions out there than Scientology. What's that? Scientology asks for donations from its members? Now what kinda kooky religion does that...? Every religion has its rules and code of conduct. To pick on Scientology because it was invented by an eccentric writer instead of a Jewish carpenter is bigoted discrimination of the highest order.
Manfred Powell on Apr 10, 2008
I thoroughly enjoyed watching Valkyrie on the big screen and definitely recommend it to those who have not yet seen it.
Pinky on Jan 30, 2009
New comments are no longer allowed on this post.