« Great Tip From A Reader (RP) | Main | Can You Discuss Violence Seriously & Show It At the Same Time? »
September 26, 2005
Missing The SS Joke With Page Six
For whatever reasons, Page Six decides to take a swipe at Steven Soderbergh’s comments about the business of Hollywood being ‘out of whack” in Anne Thompson’s column last Friday.
The funny thing is, I agree in principle. The headlined "out of whack” was never really discussed in the piece and the reality is, Soderbergh seems to be very happy to swing between experimental small films for which the day-n-date Home Entertainment distribution models being pushed by Mark Cuban make great sense – anything that expands the distribution opportunities for those films is a win – and big movies for WB that would not exist in the shunken head economics of a shorter DVD/PPV/VOD window.
However, whatever stick is up Page Six’s source’s ass is dead wrong, trying to spin Soderbergh’s commercial success as mediocre by pretending that there has been a movie made in the last five years that was not financed with foreign and Home Entertainment as 60% or more of expected revenues.
PAGE SIX writes: "The Jacket (which Soderbergh directed and produced) was made for $25 million, but grossed only $6 million.”
REALITY is that Soderbergh didn’t direct the film and there are 19 producers on the film, which was financed primarily with international pre-sales.
PAGE SIX writes: "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (produced) was made for $29 million, but grossed $16 million in the U.S."
REALITY is that George Clooney’s directing debut was bungled domestically by Miramax, which Soderbergh had little to do with, really, and was profitable after home Entertainment.
PAGE SIX writes: “Welcome to Collinwood (produced) was made for $12 million and grossed a mere $350,000.”
REALITY is that there is no real defending this one… a bad movie and a bomb that never got close to finding its legs. But it was also the first Section Eight movie at Warners and was an attempt to support two up-n-coming filmmakers.
As for the commercial movies…
PAGE SIX writes: "Solaris (directed) was made for $47 million, and grossed $15 million.“
REALITY is Solaris grossed over $30 million worldwide and another $50 million or so in DVD and still lost money… but it was Soderbergh’s most expensive art project that lead to a return to the Oceans franchise.
PAGE SIX writes: "Ocean's 12 was made for $110 million and grossed only $125 million.
REALITY is Ocean’s 12 grossed $365 million worldwide, making it one of the rare movies of this era that was in profit before going to DVD.
The gossip sheet leaves out Ocean’s 11’s $450 million in worldwide gross, more than $100 million into profit before any ancillaries kicked in, taking the profit to more than $200 million.
Ocean’s 13 is currently in active development for a reason… money.
PAGE SIX writes: "Far From Heaven (produced) cost $13.5 million and grossed $15 million.
REALITY is that Far From Heaven was financed outside of Warner Bros, grossed over $30 million worldwide, spent very carefully on P&A and made a nice profit on investment in the ancillary markets. It also was nominated for four Oscars and is one of the jewels of Focus Features’ library.
Like I said, you can definitely make a case for Soderbergh talking out of both sides of his mouth. Here is a filmmaker who in deeply invested in finding an audience for non-commercial experimental films. Bubble is one and NY Film Fest opener Good Night, And Good Luck is another… neither gets whacked because both have some positive buzz right now and very small budgets.
But since he started pushing out more commercial work, you’re looking at $260 million worldwide on Erin Brokovich, a breakthrough $210 million worldwide on Traffic, a profitable if not overwhelming Full Frontal and the various pictures mentioned above. The only money loser he directed was Solaris. And as a producer, Section Eight has made 14 films under its WB deal (including Syriana and Rumor Has It, still due this year) and really, only the low budget Criminal and Welcome to Collinwood have potentially lost some money. On the other hand, Jim Cameron’s company, not Section Eight, produced Solaris… and you know what a money loser that guy is!
Posted by poland at September 26, 2005 09:34 PM
Comments
That's a LOT of research and copy to refute a Page Six story. Isn't Page Six only a gossip column??
Posted by: Wrecktum ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 26, 2005 10:25 PM
It took me 30 minutes.... which is one of the reasons I have no tolerance of unresearched stories.
And when something like this comes up in Page Six, commenting on a trade story, the effort s to make an impact. So I take it seriously.
Posted by: David Poland at September 27, 2005 12:17 AM
That was... really good! It was interesting, indeed.
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 at September 27, 2005 01:56 AM
The New York Post could always hire a 10year old intern who knows how to use google to fact-check their stories. Or outsource the fact-checking to India.
I'd talk to Lachlan about it, but he quit and went back home to Australia (you know kids like Lachlan, they get tired of playing with even the most expensive toys their given after awhile).
But hey, facts getting in the way of a good story don't reflect on Newscorp being 'fair and balanced.' No, wait, it does.
Posted by: sky_capitan at September 27, 2005 03:28 AM
Oh Page Six. Makes reading the paper worthwhile. For the laughs.
Posted by: joefitz84 at September 27, 2005 04:32 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)