The Hot Blog: A Brief Look At The Problem With The Dependents

« It Was M:I 3 Night On Leno Thursday Night | Main | Friday Estimates by Klady »

May 12, 2006

A Brief Look At The Problem With The Dependents

This really is a full column, but for the moment, I want to offer some reason for my derision of Anne Thompson’s Friday column, “Success of indie units gives execs new clout.”

First, she is right that producers like Michael London do have more clout, though in that case, London has also worked with the big studio sides successfully as well. Scott Rudin has yet to be helped in his profile by an indie. The other producers mentioned are esteemed... and have been for years, without successfully breaking the indie glass ceiling.

As for the Dependents themselves – which aside from Harvey Weinstein did not, in fact, participate publicly in the screen ban battle that did no one any good then or now – they are a mess right now, far less powerful in any way other than media hype than they were just two years ago when they peaked. WIP is in transition to a more major-controlled arm. Linde’s ascension at Universal is a reminder of just how tightly held he was by the big studio and the value of his international skills, much like Jim G at Fox. Miramax is just getting started and where it is going is unclear. UA is no more, though it did great for Sony Classics by dumping Capote in their laps last year. Fox Searchlight has had some success with their horror film and their Toronto pick-up, though fell flat with their urban film and their Russian pick-up (with a sequel on the way). Picturehouse still barely exists as of this writing. And all we really know about (working title) Paramount Classics is that John Lesher can give lots of money to people who he already knows.

Keeping Miramax, then and now, out of the equation, Dependents WOM have recovered from last year’s disastrous first four months of the year in which they grossed just $53 million between all the divisions. That was down from $80 million in the same period the year before (2004). And this year, the divisions have managed $115 million, with the two Searchlight hits representing more than half the gross ($62 million) themselves so far.

But what happens when you add Miramax/Dimension? Things change dramatically. First-third 2004 was a $203 million period for the Dependents. First-third 2005 was down minimally, with $189 million. And this year looks painful so far with just $118 million.

No one has come close to making up for the loss of the Weinsteins from the Dependent ranks. And even taking them out of the equation, that area of the business is certainly not thriving.

Worse, what is the heart of the success the Dependents do have? Mostly genre pictures, not adult quality. Thank You For Smoking and Friends With Money are the exceptions this year so far, appealing to adults intellectuals. But after that? The Hills Have Eyes, Something New, Dave Chappelle’s Block Party, and Phat Girlz are the only Dependents to crack $5 million. That’s 6 of 23 that will crack $5 million.

The same has been true in the last couple of years. Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind is the one shining star in the first third of the last two years. After that, Johnson Family Vacation, Kung Fu Hustle, Assault On Precinct 13, The Jacket, Never Die Alone, Millions (it’s for kids!) and Club Dread. That’s 8 of 28 over $5 million, if you’re counting.

Basically, there are two consistent players in the showy niche, Focus and Fox Searchlight. And Sony Classics has become the warm wet spot for higher end films with lower expectations.

But thriving?

Peter Rice’s power has been secure for years now and will keep growing with success. Barker & Bernard are well ensconced.

On the flip side, Gill is out. Battsek and Lesher are brand new and inexperienced in making movies. And Linde’s ascension is not a shock – outside of devaluing Focus – because his international business prowess was so highly esteemed when Universal acquired Good Machine years ago. So three of six divisions are completely up in the air and post-Weinstein, one more has to deal with a loss of part of its leadership, and the overall market is down… way down.

Good things may be coming. I hope. But now is hardly the time to be counting eggs.

Posted by poland at May 12, 2006 02:36 PM

Comments

So how is Fox Searchlight anything close to
indie (yes, I know the word is 'dependent') when their highest-grossing movie is a horror remake? They're basically just the low-budget arm of big Fox, nothing 'indie' about it.
Yeesh, the sad state of affairs of this realm of film production.

Posted by: jeffmcm at May 12, 2006 06:19 PM

This is actually a comment referring to the Hot Button column.

Simply, thank you.

I often bitch about some of your ideas/opinions, Mr. Poland, but today's column is just perfect. It says so much about why the moviegoing experience shouldn't be dismissed, and also about the value of the old-fashioned in general.

Some folks assume that because there are new technologies, it's inevitable that they will take over. Bullshit, I say.

I don't have a cellphone or an Ipod, I don't even have a car. Ok, I have a computer and the internet (obviously), but other than that I still enjoy the same things I did ten years ago: riding my bicycle, seeing live bands and talking to people in person. I may not be in the majority, but I dare hope there will always be a place for such simpler things.

Posted by: Goulet at May 12, 2006 09:46 PM

Fox Searchlight's biggest hit was Sideways.

I think Ms. Thompson's article should have been more about how the indie units are really much more efficient versions of the big studio parents. In other words, by sticking to smaller bureaucraccy, tighter monetary controls, and edgier fare, they are seen as the guinea pigs for emerging profitable trends. And when those trends hit it big, they will have the machinery to expand. Of course executives at the specialties will be better trained...they will be more directly involved in marketing movies from scratch, not the one size fits all campaign.

Posted by: palmtree at May 12, 2006 11:04 PM

Yes, the words "this year" should have been inserted in my above comments re: Fox Searchlight and The Hills Have Eyes.

Posted by: jeffmcm at May 12, 2006 11:29 PM

A lot of the movies that Fox Searchlight, Warner Independent and Focus Features distribute have been independently financed and produced before they're picked up for distribution, so in that sense, I would still consider those films "indie."

Posted by: EDouglas at May 13, 2006 06:22 AM

By that definition "The Sixth Sense" was an indie pic. So are Episodes 1, 2 and 3 of "Star Wars".

In addition to "Capote" UA gave Sony Classics "Art School Confidential". That pic went national this week thanks to the AMC chain's new arthouse-friendly policy.

Miramax is actually getting restarted -- its slate was wiped clean when Disney purged the Weinstein brothers. Also, Dimension went to the Weinstein Co. in the purge, thus "Scary Movie 4" was handled by Weinstein for US/Canada.

Posted by: Chucky in Jersey at May 13, 2006 08:39 AM

Scary Movie 4 was handled by Disney (BVI) internationally.

Sixth Sense may have been an independent production (I don't know myself) but the fact that it was released through a major distributor pretty much negates the indie label.

Posted by: Wrecktum at May 13, 2006 10:44 AM

Those Friday Poseidon numbers are UGLY. And if the audience I saw it with last night is any indication, word of mouth is going to be horrid. Just My Luck doesn't look to be any happier (6-7M open--ouch!). And M:I:3 is holding adequately for a big open movie (looking like a 55% drop).

Posted by: MattM at May 13, 2006 11:10 AM

"but the fact that it was released through a major distributor pretty much negates the indie label."

By that standard, El Mariachi wasn't an indie film.

WB really fumbled Poseidon. I got a good laugh out of an EW article where Dreyfus was quoted saying why he wanted to do Poseidon, "They offered me a lot of money and I needed it."

Posted by: palmtree at May 13, 2006 11:40 AM

Classy Dreyfuss, classy.

Movies such as The Sixth Sense and the Star Wars movies may indeed be indi because they were self-financed, but the people financing them aren't exactly strapped for cash, are they?

Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 at May 13, 2006 11:57 PM

Everything you guys say is just reaffirming my notion that "indie" is a largely meaningless label these days, and the only true indie films are ones that nobody has heard of.

Posted by: jeffmcm at May 14, 2006 02:54 AM

Well, that's completely true. But people like to create labels.

That's why the Independent Spirit Awards are a crock. How Sideways was called an indie was beyond me. a $20mil budget for an adult comedy does not scream INDIE to me.

Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 at May 14, 2006 05:05 AM

How low does it have to be before it's indie? I was under the impression that indie meant produced independently of the major studios. Who the distributor is doesn't change indie status.

Posted by: palmtree at May 14, 2006 10:16 AM

I know that no one's reading this anymore, but to respond to the above, El Mariachi was made completely outside the Hollywood system, unlike Star Wars or Sixth Sense. Sixth Sense might have been financed independently (if true, I don't know this for sure), but was produced by Kathleen Kennedy and Frank Marshall. You don't get more Hollywood than that.

Posted by: Wrecktum at May 14, 2006 10:58 AM

You can be 'independently produced' and still be an utterly conventional, bland, mass-produced piece of trash. Hell, most student films fit that category.

Posted by: jeffmcm at May 15, 2006 03:00 AM

The Hot Blog

May 12, 2006

A Brief Look At The Problem With The Dependents

Comments

Post a comment