'Jupiter Ascending' release is delayed until 2015

'Jupiter Ascending,' the science fiction tale starring Mila Kunis and Channing Tatum, has reportedly been delayed until February 2015. 'Jupiter Ascending' is directed by Andy and Lana Wachowski, who were behind the 'Matrix' series.

Chris Pizzello/Invision/AP
'Jupiter Ascending' stars Channing Tatum (l.) and Mila Kunis (r.).

Andy and Lana Wachowski’s next project, Jupiter Ascending, looks as ambitious in scope and grandiose in design as everything else the filmmaking siblings have made in the past fifteen years; whether its grasp will exceed its reach, has been a real concern for even the most ardent of Wachowski fans. The film’s trailers have served up quite the dazzling smorgasbord of science fiction and fantasy tropes; unfortunately, in the wake of news that the movie has been delayed by nearly seven months, the signs are currently pointing to Jupiter Ascending possibly being a hot mess, rather than a Star Wars-ian mold-breaking epic.

 The Wachowskis regained some of the critical luster that has eluded them since their Matrix days back in 2012, with their kaleidoscopic, genre-blending, saga adaptation, Cloud Atlas (which Tom Tykwer co-directed); in spite of that, the costly project only earned $27 million during its U.S. theatrical run, though its $103 million foreign saved the movie from being written off as a complete financial bomb. Nonetheless, in a time when sequels, franchise reboots, and/or property re-imaginings tend to dominate the box office (a time when even a Tom Cruise sci-fi thriller like Edge of Tomorrow isn’t considered to be a surefire bet), there’s fair reason to question Jupiter Ascending‘s financial prospects – with or without good word of mouth on its side, that is.

It’s therefore not unreasonable to assume that concerns about the shaky box office prospects did, at the least, partially motivate Warner Bros. to move Jupiter Ascending away from July 2014 to what should be the less-competitive month of February 2015. Deadline, however, is also reporting that the film – starring Mila Kunis as a seemingly ordinary human woman who is protected by a genetically-enhanced warrior (Channing Tatum) when outside forces discover that she is destined for far greater things – has been delayed to allow for an extended post-production period, so that the $150 million movie’s complex visual effects can be better completed and polished to a shine.

Warner Bros. have swapped out the Liam Neeson action/thriller Run All Night for Jupiter Ascending, as its new release on February 6th next year. Other titles scheduled to open that day include Johnny Depp’s caper comedy Mortdecai and Legendary’s Seventh Son movie – the latter being a big-budget fantasy based on the Wardstone Chronicles book series which, like Jupiter Ascending, has been delayed before, in part due to needing more time to finish its own visual effects. There’s definitely some overlap between Jupiter and Son, as far as demographic target appeal goes, but that doesn’t mean the pair cannot co-exist somewhat in peace.

As indicated before, the significant push-back for Jupiter Ascending doesn’t bode all that well for the film’s quality, especially seeing how the news is arriving just a month and a half before the film was slated to hit theaters. That said, not every movie that endures a significant delay winds up being I, Frankenstein; sometimes, you get something more worthwhile like the RoboCop remake, which (similar to Jupiter) was originally supposed to arrive in the summertime, before it was shoved into a February launch date instead. As someone who generally enjoys the Wachowskis’ films, I’ll keep hoping for the best - while still preparing for the worst.

Sandy Schaefer blogs at Screen Rant.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.