Unveiling to the public

The footsteps of March irresistibly entered Lyman's life. It had been over half a month since the Sundance Film Festival, and "3 Idiots" had still not been released in theaters nationwide. However, according to their plan, it would be soon.

On the other hand, EuropaCorp entrusted Paramount Pictures with the distribution work for the American market, and the scheduled limited release remained unchanged. It was set to begin on the second week of March, specifically on March 10th.

The film would have its premiere in 21 art-house theaters in Los Angeles and New York. The subsequent expansion of screenings had not been decided yet and would be adjusted based on market reception and box office performance.

As the release date of the film drew near, Lyman finally saw news and advertisements for "3 Idiots" in the media. He was still in the United States, although he had briefly returned to Cannes, France, but quickly came back.

The team members remained the same, and they still needed to cooperate with Paramount Pictures' work and handle related matters.

The promotional work was in full swing. Entertainment sections of second and third-tier newspapers in the Los Angeles area featured news of the film receiving recognition at the Sundance Film Festival and its upcoming release. Some film critics used their columns to praise, promote, or question the film, trying their best to attract attention. Trailers for the film were also played in certain theaters between screenings.

On Monday, March 3rd, "3 Idiots" quietly released its first promotional poster for the North American market. The poster featured the three main characters standing in a row, smiling and looking ahead. The background depicted a beautiful campus. Although they were smiling, their eyes revealed a sense of loneliness, helplessness, and confusion. With just a single poster, it seemed to capture the essence of the film's story.

On March 10th, "3 Idiots" officially premiered in North American theaters, while screenings also began in countries such as France, the United Kingdom, and Germany. Just as Lyman had envisioned, this would be a simultaneous global release.

In the United States, the limited release unexpectedly attracted a lot of attention. One reason was the influence of the Sundance Film Festival, and another was the spontaneous appearance of numerous voices from festival attendees on the internet. They expressed that one could only truly experience the shock of the film after watching it, as if they had personally stepped into ICE and felt the oppression, unease, sadness, and despair within that environment. People shared their thoughts and opinions after watching the film, which, combined with Paramount Pictures' recent promotional efforts, quietly generated more curiosity and anticipation.

During the second week of March, there were a total of two films released on a large scale in theaters: "We Were Soldiers" and "John Q.". The former was a war action film starring Mel Gibson, Greg Kinnear, and Sam Elliott, and it was unanimously considered the most powerful competitor for the weekend box office crown. The latter was an American crime film featuring Denzel Washington, Kimberly Elise, and Ray Liotta. However, due to its focus on the story of a factory worker, which limited its scope, it was considered a disadvantage for a crime film. Additionally, the director's limited abilities meant it was destined to struggle in the box office market.

Although the two new films each had their own topics and promotional focus, the already lackluster March schedule did not become more exciting with their addition. In this awkward time period, coupled with the absence of the younger generation of box office powerhouses, these two films were indeed in a difficult situation. With such a huge investment, the combined production costs of the two films exceeded $100M, yet their daily market earnings were not high.

Meanwhile, the films that had been released earlier and were still playing inevitably displayed various signs of decline. It could be said that none of the films released on a wide scale in March could dominate; they were all simply competing to be the worst. After missing the excitement of the preview season during the year-end awards, most of the films choosing to release during this period were truly independent works distributed by independent film companies, such as the film "Personal Velocity: Three Portraits", which was dumped into this time slot by Miramax.

Compared to Harvey's complete disregard for this film that won the Sundance Grand Jury Prize, "3 Idiots" seemed to have better planning. The promotion for the two films was also on different levels. With such a comparison, the various topics surrounding ""3 Idiots" easily became the talk of art-house cinema lovers.

After the films were released in 21 cinemas in the two regions, Paramount Pictures once again intensified its efforts, and numerous media outlets came to their support. Film critics, who always considered themselves the embodiment of artistic thought, did not want to miss this highly acclaimed film feast. Therefore, on the second day after its release, more than twenty media outlets reviewed "3 Idiots", which was considered outstanding among the films screened in art-house cinemas.

Media outlets such as The New York Times, Film Comment, The Wall Street Journal, and the Los Angeles Times unanimously praised and commended the film. Their reviews focused on highlighting the film's recommendability index, which made up the majority of their reviews.

The remaining reviews were also overwhelmingly positive. This overwhelming advantage of public opinion ignited a frenzy of previews for the film, further elevating the media's enthusiastic attitude from the Sundance Film Festival to its peak. It seemed that everyone was amazed by the sudden emergence of "3 Idiots". Variety, one of Hollywood's two major industry magazines, even said in its latest issue, "God, where did this director come from?"

Unlike other media outlets that focused on the film itself, Variety emphasized the introduction of the film's director and attributed all the praise to him. "Sharp, incisive, and agile... In his second directorial work, Lyman Lattes displayed his talent in an exuberant manner. In this bold film set in an Indian university campus, he showed us unparalleled control. The vibrant and vivid color palette combined with seamless transitions in storytelling made the entire plot flow smoothly. The film starts off with joy and turns into sadness in the latter half, with such significant emotional fluctuations that appear incredibly natural. One cannot help but admire his experienced directorial style."

"He doesn't seem like a newcomer; he gives the impression of a seasoned veteran. However, this is indeed only his second film. I don't know how many people have seen his debut work, titled "Buried" which was also shot quite daringly. I recommend taking a look. Of course, it's no longer available in theaters, but the film is still available on videotapes..."

"... I look forward to more and superior works from this young man in the future."

As the review in Variety said, the entire Hollywood industry was puzzled. This director, who had an exceptionally skilled directorial style and was only 27 years old, had only one film released before. Yet, he appeared to have the experience of having directed many more.

Although people always admire young geniuses who achieve fame early, in Hollywood, or more precisely, in the global film industry, when it comes to the position of a director, besides innate talent and skill, one also needs overall control, as well as some experience and social exposure. That's why it's not surprising that most directors reach the peak of their creative and directorial careers between the ages of 40 and 60.

For a director, being under 30 is still considered a beginner. However, such a "beginner" took on a film with an ensemble cast and really did a great job.

It is well-known that depicting the background of an era always adds a level of difficulty to filmmaking, and it becomes even more puzzling when the film focuses on the perspective of education in the Indian region. How did he achieve the smoothness of the story while maintaining the conflicting elements of the drama? The integration was so harmonious. Even the shift in the overall atmosphere of the film was untraceable but appeared reasonable, just like the story itself had existed before and should have unfolded in this way.

"Authenticity" was the unanimous praise.

However, people often find ways to explain such doubts. Entertainment Weekly titled its review as "Sundance Witnesses the Rise of Another Genius" and once again applauded the film's director, Lyman, for his accomplishments.

They also made a comparison between him and Quentin Tarantino, both of whom were hailed as geniuses. When Tarantino made "Reservoir Dogs", he rose to prominence at Sundance at the age of only 31. Lyman, with "3 Idiots", also rose to fame at the same place, at the age of only 27.

In the article's conclusion, apart from unanimous positive recommendations, they also expressed in the commentary, "Both possess stunning and dazzling directorial talent, as well as boundless inspiration. They both achieved fame at the same place, making it easy for people to compare the two. We wonder what kind of sparks they will each create in the future. We can't wait to see!" These comments, filled with countless confidence and praise, clearly demonstrated the positive attitude of film critics.

One wave after another of positive reviews indicated the quality of the film itself. However, what about the audience's selectivity and the market's reception? Is this film both critically acclaimed and commercially successful, or is it simply another case where artistic merit outweighs profits?

The preview results in 21 art-house cinemas instantly captured people's attention making others wonder as to what would follow.