Dinner for Schmucks Gets Pushed Back a Week

There has been some minor shuffling going on with a few summer releases this week, and the end result is that the upcoming Steve Carell / Paul Rudd comedy Dinner for Schmucks has been delayed by a week. It all started with Universal bumping up the Zac Efron drama Charlie St. Cloud to July 30th, which caused CBS Films to delay their modern Beauty and the Beast remake Beastly to March 2011. Paramount then decided to relocate Schmucks to the July 30th slot, since neither Charlie St. Cloud nor Cats & Dogs: Revenge of Kitty Galore were likely to be in direct competition with the comedy.

It certainly seems like a good move, considering that Dinner for Schmucks was also slated to go head to head with the Angelina Jolie action-thriller Salt on July 23rd. However, the most likely reason for the move was probably to keep the film as far away from Inception and The Sorcerer’s Apprentice as possible. I’m still not quite sold on Dinner for Schmucks, but since it is one of only three major comedies coming out this summer (along with Get Him to the Greek and The Other Guys), I suspect it may still generate some decent business. One thing’s for sure… it is highly unlikely that it will be this summer’s equivalent to The Hangover, even though Zach Galifianakis is involved.

Around the Web:

  • Have you seen the second trailer for this Sean? Its fucking epic. Its getting to the point where I don’t think this film can possibly live up to how much it is promising. But if it does, oh man.

  • ASFan

    How is Grown Ups not one of the major comedies of the summer? Regardless of preconceived notions of that film, it still is one of the major comedies of the summer.

    Oh, and I’ve seen the second trailer for Dinner for Schmucks and I’m far from impressed. And test screenings have been lukewarm.

  • Matt: I have seen the second trailer. I don’t know, sometimes I think it looks hilarious, and other times I think it looks like it’s going to be absolutely terrible.

    ASFan: You’re right, Grown Ups should definitely count as one of the major comedies, although the fact that I forgot about it probably isn’t a good sign.

  • ASFan

    Well, with all due respect, just because you may have forgotten about Grown Ups doesn’t mean other have. I’m still on edge about it, but almost everyone I know is talking about it.

  • haha @ ASFan. Is this guy serious?

  • ASFan

    Hey, it’s not like I said I was excited to see it. But I’m more likely to see that than Dinner for Schmucks.

  • Mike

    I’m living my life as if Grown Ups never existed…therefore i liked this article before i read the comments.

  • The weird thing about Grown Ups is that I feel like it would be getting more attention if it was just an Adam Sandler vehicle. Somehow, having a bunch of other stars alongside him seems to be making it harder to market.

  • Grown Ups feels to me like the movie equivalent of the summer music festival – were the individual bands can’t front a profitable mega summer tour, so they team together for a combined event. All the stars of this movie, besides Sandler and James, couldn’t get a summer comedy green lit.

  • ASFan

    But Dinner for Schmucks looks like an offensively bad film. Like it not only looks bad, but it looks to also offend people. Test screenings called Carell’s character borderline autistic.

  • Comedy should offend. If it doesn’t you’re doing it wrong.

    And who the hell uses test screenings to judge anything other than studio execs?

  • ASFan

    Comedy should also be funny. And I’m not getting that vibe here.

  • And you do from 4 men peeing in a kiddie pool?

  • ASFan

    No, I don’t. I never said that. I never said that I think Grown Ups looks that good. I am saying that I think Dinner for Schmucks looks that bad. A movie that condones the discrimination of less fortunate people is not something we need, particularly in this economy.

    A bunch of rich corporate snobs who, in this economy, use their time and money to throw big dinner parties and make fun of idiots they bring? It’s insulting, and it’s mean-spirited.

    Offensive does not always equal good comedy.

  • So its ok to make fun of the less fortunate when its 40-year-old Virgin, but not when its Dinner for Schmucks.

    Because of the economy.

    Got it.

  • Jay Beezy

    I’m not spewing the kind of vitriol that ASFan is, but I’m siding with Sean here. There could be a really great comedy here, but I’ve each new piece of promotional material just as unamusing as the last piece. The first trailer practically told the entire plot. I like Carell, Rudd, and Galifianakis, but I’ll wait to hear the verdict on this before deciding whether or not to see this.

  • ASFan

    I didn’t get the vibe that The 40-Year-Old Virgin was condoning that kind of behavior. And I never said it was ok to do that when we’re not in a bad economy. I said it rings even more true when we are. That is what the word particularly is used for.

  • I said it rings even more true when we are. That is what the word particularly is used for.

    Exactly, you are implying it rings true all the time, but even more forcefully now. If you truly believe their are boundaries in comedy that can’t be crossed then you shouldn’t be judging its merits in the first place.

  • ASFan

    Well then, add to the fact that people are losing their jobs left and right and rich snobs are using their own money to make fun of idiots. Do you honestly think that’s funny? Do you think rape and pedophilia are funny? Speaking of which, Carell and Rudd look like pedophiles on the poster.

  • Jay Beezy

    Wow. Alright. This is getting out of hand.

  • ASFan

    Yeah, you’re right. Sorry about that. I still think this looks like the comedy bomb of the summer. I saw the trailer with Get Him to the Greek and nobody laughed. I heard someone go WTF.