Delaying ‘Titanic’ Release Date Good For Film

When Paramount Pictures officially announced that James Cameron’s “Titanic” would not be ready in time to sail this summer, the announcement confirmed months of speculation and sent the Hollywood rumor mill into overdrive.

Originally scheduled for a July 2 release, “Titanic” will open in the United States on Dec. 19 - the same weekend as Steven Spielberg’s historical drama “Amistad;” the latest James Bond caper, “Tomorrow Never Dies;” “Home Alone III;” the Antonio Banderas vehicle “The Mask of Zorro;” and possibly even “Scream 2.”

Industry observers are already proclaiming the three-hour movie to be as doomed as the ocean liner itself. In light of such stiff competition, “Titanic” will have a formidable time recouping its $200 million-plus budget (which is expected to swell by another $30 million because of the delay).

But from the audience’s perspective - from those of us who just want to see a good movie - delaying “Titanic’s” release is the best thing that could have happened to the film.

Hollywood’s quest for the big blockbuster has reached extremes worthy of the Keystone Kops. The studios’ preoccupation with opening dates and maximal positioning has taken priority over everything - even the actual movies.

Some of the most expensive films of recent years began production without as much as a finished script. “Waterworld,” “Cutthroat Island” and “Die Hard With a Vengeance” - all of which cost more than $100 million - started shooting without anybody knowing how the story would turn out.

Why take such a ridiculous gamble? Because it was the only way those movies would be finished in time for a lucrative early- to mid-summer release date. Once you get past July, there simply isn’t enough time left in the summer season to generate blockbuster-size earnings (1993’s “The Fugitive,” which opened in August and grossed $150 million, was a rare exception).

Sometimes, the hurry-up gamble pays off: “Die Hard With a Vengeance” was a big hit, and even the much-maligned “Waterworld” fared OK. But more often, the crapshoot leads to snake eyes. “Cutthroat Island” shared the same fate as “Titanic:” It wasn’t ready in time for summer and had to be pushed back to December. The movie, which was big and awful, ended up grossing a measly $10 million. (It also bankrupted Carolco Pictures, the studio that bankrolled it).

“Titanic’s” delays are a different story. Cameron has been working on this movie for five years now - it’s his longtime dream project - and his consistent track record, both artistically and commercially, has earned him the right to make it as big and as long as he wants. Every movie Cameron has directed since 1986’s “Aliens” has gone over budget: It happened to “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” and “The Abyss” and “True Lies.” But Cameron can always find financing for his insanely expensive movies because the guy has vision, and he knows how to use technology to realize it. His movies always show you things you’ve never seen before. Cameron has said the “Titanic” delay will mark the first time he’s had the time to finish and polish a movie the way he’d like. The post-production rush hurt 1989’s “The Abyss,” his $70 million underwater extravaganza that missed its original July release date, came out in mid-August, and then sank at the box office. (To see the difference a little extra time makes, check out the director’s cut of “The Abyss” on laser disc, which has a drastically different - and much more satisfying - third act).

Still, studios never learn. Cameron, who has waived all directing fees on “Titanic,” has said the movie will be finished by late summer. “Titanic” is a co-production between Paramount Pictures (which shelled out $65 million and is distributing the movie domestically) and 20th Century Fox (which put up the rest of the money and will release “Titanic” around the rest of the world after it opens in the United States). When Fox learned that the movie would probably be ready in August, it tried to buy out Paramount’s interest in the movie, so it could release it in the fall.

Paramount wisely refused, choosing to wait until December to maximize the film’s Oscar chances as well as capitalize on the holiday moviegoing crowds. Judging by the trailers, the movie seems better suited to Christmas than summer anyway, since it promises to be a cross between a high-toned Merchant-Ivory period drama and an eyepopping disaster flick.

As far as that $200 million price tag goes … who cares? When you’re dealing with Cameron, you know you’re going to see every penny up on the screen.