Babylon (Damien Chazelle, 2022)

[Never Cursed]

Am I wrong, or does Paramount only have two theatrical releases planned between now and this film (neither of which are particularly large)? When are they going to launch their trailer?

[Matt]

Would this be something likely to premiere at a high-profile festival? Venice starts August 31, Telluride September 1, and Toronto September 8, so maybe a trailer sometime around then? La La Land and First Man actually played all three (both premiering at Venice). First teaser for La La Land came out July 13 ahead of a December 9 limited release.

[Harvest]

When are people going to learn to stop paying attention to Jordan Ruimy?

[Never Cursed]

When he stops being right ~47% of the time

[yoloswegmaster]

First look at Babylon from Vanity Fair

Images:

SpoilerShow

[Never Cursed]

Fwiw the article confirms that the names of most of the characters have been changed, but these scenes still resemble their equivalents from the earlier screenplay that named the real-life figures (Nellie LaRoy = Clara Bow, Elinor St. John = Elinor Glyn, etc, should be easy to deduce for someone with a knowledge of the period). Also Tobey Maguire is playing James McKay, a real-life crime boss and casino baron.

[therewillbeblus]

Huh, suddenly I'm not as disappointed that Robbie replaced Stone anymore..

Beyond excited to watch Tobey Maguire chew scenery in this part!

[Never Cursed]

Trailer Monday (probably)

[Black Hat]

Man, this could be one of the biggest flops Baz Luhrmann's had.

[Never Cursed]

Trailer tomorrow, teaser posters:

SpoilerShow

[Never Cursed]

Trailer (NSFW)

[Matt]

The Wolf of Melrose Avenue

[Persona]

Only a trailer but I'm not very taken with it. Looks obnoxious.

Diego Calva might be worth watching, though.

[MongooseCmr]

It only just dawned on me how weird it is to have Pitt and Robbie star in another decadent alternative history Hollywood period piece

[JabbaTheSlut]

Only a trailer but I'm not very taken with it. Looks obnoxious.

Diego Calva might be worth watching, though.

I agree. Looks like a very expensive commercial.

[therewillbeblus]

Robbie's character's flushed, quirky demeanor in delivery, and the dialog itself, seems explicitly written for Stone. I have no doubt Robbie will sell the character with her strong, exciting presence, but it's probably always going to be difficult to unsee Chazelle's vision to take Stone's star power and push it to new, perverse places - places Robbie started her career going to and worked inward from, basically the opposite as Stone

[Computer Raheem]

Trailer (NSFW)

I see they decided to lean into the shock and awe of "DRUGS! SEX! HOLLYWOOD!" for the marketing. Makes sense, but it feels as though there's a darker edge the trailer only alludes to before getting back to the chaos (most of which appears to be that rumored thirty-minute party scene). Hopefully, this isn't a sign of things to come for the tone of the film. On the positive side, Diego Calva looks like he'll make a interesting lead (can see why Chazelle fought for him in the role) and Tobey Maguire looks like he's having the time of his life, which is always nice to see

Also, has anyone else noticed that they don't put actor's names in trailers anymore? I can understand not doing that for a superhero film, but for a reportedly three-hour original, you think they would highlight the presence of a Brad Pitt or Margot Robbie as major selling points in the trailer itself (they're certainly bigger draws to a mainstream audience than Damian Chazelle is, especially when you don't mention any of his movies by name)

[Matt]

Maybe Paramount thinks it stinks and doesn’t know what to do with it, so it’s just getting a cursory awards-qualifying theatrical release—hoping it might at least get writing and directing noms because it’s a big movie about making movies—before they dump it on Paramount+ the first week of March and the stars won’t do any additional press for it.

[Computer Raheem]

Maybe Paramount thinks it stinks and doesn’t know what to do with it, so it’s just getting a cursory awards-qualifying theatrical release—hoping it might at least get writing and directing noms because it’s a big movie about making movies—before they dump it on Paramount+ the first week of March and the stars won’t do any additional press for it.

It's possible, but I wouldn't be shocked if the new suits are more to blame - this definitely reads as a movie that was championed by Gianopulos' regime and is now (presumably) the bane of Robbins'

[Never Cursed]

...I think neither of those things are true, given that Paramount shunted an even more expensive giant prestige auteur epic to next year (potentially December of next year) to make sure this had room. Everyone involved wants to win an Oscar really bad off this (Robbie and Jean Smart might well), and even if they didn't, no studio still doing theatrical release wants to lose 100+ million. I think the parsimonious explanation is the best one: they want to market this as Wolf of Wall Street 2 and are only dodging Christmas weekend for the wide release because they don't want to compete with the Avatar sequel (though if I were them I'd run it on Christmas anyway as counterprogramming). Say what you will about the film, but 1917 reaped rewards by doing a similar limited-wide release to avoid that year's Star Wars, and it would have swept the Oscars had there not mercifully been a much stronger universal favorite.

On an unrelated note, if anyone was wondering, this trailer hews about ~95% to the leaked script - only the Robbie-Calva dialogue at the beginning and some of Pitt's speech is not in the script, though both those scenes are

[felipe]

Is Margot Robbie's character still inspired by Clara Bow? I couldn't really place her look in 1920s Hollywood.

[therewillbeblus]

Looks like Paramount will now be giving this a wide release on Dec 23

[Matt]

I’m going to stick to my cynical guns and believe that Paramount got spooked by Amsterdam flopping and decided to go with a with a cash-grab wide opening. Hard-sell Margot Robbie awards campaign incoming.

[hearthesilence]

I'm not really a huge fan of Chazelle or David O. Russell's films, but it'll be bad for American cinema if Amsterdam and Babylon end up losing a ton of money. It's tough enough financing auteur films on a grand scale, and this won't be encouraging for anyone.

[Computer Raheem]

I'm not really a huge fan of Chazelle or David O. Russell's films, but it'll be bad for American cinema if Amsterdam and Babylon end up losing a ton of money. It's tough enough financing auteur films on a grand scale, and this won't be encouraging for anyone.

Personally, while I'd be shocked if Babylon was a huge hit (especially now that it's competing against Avatar 2 instead of benefitting from potential word of mouth), the hook of "watch all these big stars do crazy shit in old Hollywood!" is an easier sell to audiences than "watch all these big stars do... something!" Plus, Chazelle's successes with Whiplash and La La Land (both of which have had pretty strong staying power in the public imagination) will probably aid in getting people in the theater, which can't really be said for O. Russell.