The Hot Blog

"And be careful before you post. Know that if you are a known person, people who you know will be trying to figure out who you are if you are unkind."

what huh what huh what?

i have no idea what that means.

New Line, to me, is a real lost opportunity. I was a huge fan of their horror output in the 80's, and with the Lord of the Rings films making mad bank, i figured this would be an influx of cash that would really help put out some different films, or at least something a little left of center. But the output in the post LOTR era was just kind of bleak.

They were risky before LOTR, and everything after seemed far less risky and more atypical studio stuff that i had little interest in seeing.

Im not sure why anyone would say anything bad about the guy. i can't imagine running a studio would be an easy job. Lots of second guessing. Lots of people waiting to take a shot at you once you're down.

There's still hope for New Line.

Is there? While their books are closed to honest inspection and they deny both home and respect to a man from New Zealand who made them a billion dollars and finally gave them respect and critical and cultural cache? What is happening to New Line is simple: too many crooks, spoiling the broth, with the chief chef cooking up crap movies at the same time he was cooking the books. New Line's problem's won't be over until they fire Robert Shaye and let Peter Jackson make The Hobbit.

Their weak output seems to roughly coincide with the post-Mike DeLuca era. He seems to have been the guy who gave New Line the distinction it had for a long time.

Anghus, there seems to be a gap between who I typically think of as the readership of this site, namely, people on the fringes of the industry or who are merely devoted movie fans, and DP's vision of the readership, who are bigshot producers and agents and studio executives. And also Don Murphy.

And the nobodies like Jeffmcm.

I'm actually a little surprised to hear that Rush Hour 3 is tracking badly. (Of course, isn't it often true that films with a huge appeal to African-American audiences exceed advance expectations on opening weekend?) The first two in the franchise are in fairly constant rotation on pay- and basic-cable, so I don't think the six-year gap between 2 and 3 will matter as many think.

Readership does not equal poster-ship, jeffmcm. You'd be surprised who peruses these types of sites.

"The first two in the franchise are in fairly constant rotation on pay- and basic-cable, so I don't think the six-year gap between 2 and 3 will matter as many think."

Yeah, that's what the producers of Another 48 Hours were hoping for.

i do know a few studio people read the site. i don't think any of them post though.

I know, Wrecktum, but why read if you're not going to post?

Glad I can count on you for consistency, Ian. Go to my own blog for a change if you'd prefer to be more direct.

I read this blog for a while before I started posting. I think it can be a little intimidating for some folks and I'd imagine that most folks in the industry would rather just read the items that Poland puts up. But maybe they also check out what the commenters have to say if it pertains to them or someone they know, etc.

As for Russell Schwartz, it's a shame but it seems like with most higher-up jobs, it's "what have you done for me lately?" Apparently track record isn't as important in this industry. But, I would definitely blame output rather than marketing for the failure of those films. Plus, Rush Hour 2 came out six years ago and one of its stars hasn't worked since then and put himself out there. Although I don't understand how he couldn't have figured out a better way to sell Little Children and make it a best picture candidate. Coupled with Snakes on a Plane and its ridiculous expecations, The Nativity Story not being able to do even an eigth of Passion of the Christ business, and Tenacious D and The Last Mimzy bombing, it seems like someone had to take the hit.

Wrectum: No offense, but we're talking apples and oranges. First off, Another 48 Hrs. was a 1st sequel, not the second sequel in a franchise that had actually built from 1 to 2 in terms of ticket sales. Also, Another 48 Hrs. is a 17-year-old movie. (Yeah, I know: I was shocked, too, when I checked the date.) It opened before there were quite as many cable channels showing the same films over and over and over again.

Bah, you're wrong. My comparison kick's ass.

Well, gee, Wrecktum, if you're gonna be that way about it... You know, you don't need that comma in "kicks," you ignorant slut.

so, tell me, mr. poland-- i work in marketing. i'd love to hear just what innovative and clever tactics are used by Utley and Van Galder to make us rush out to theatres. and what mistakes were made Mr. "Old School" Schwartz? Examples please!

"You know, you don't need that comma in "kicks," you ignorant slut."

Y'es I do.

Wrecktum: I saw Rush Hour 3 tonight. And I know it will be a big hit. Why? Because just when all of us movie buffs are weepy over the passing of Ingmar Bergman, along comes a movie that co-stars Max von Sydow. So there!

Firstly, SMG, you are mixing my rhetorical apples with my rhetorical oranges. I am saying that RS is old school and is seen as old school. But I am not saying that old school must fail. I am saying that studios looking to hire in those positions right now are all looking for the next Utley or Van Galder.

I have explained, in general, what the style variation is. If you don't know the history of success that those two execs have had, you should look it up. It doesn't mean that they don't have failures. Both have. And the old school methods have had more than a little success. But to give you a simply answer, they take a wider array of information and synthesize it with a more open view of how to poke at the key audiences than others. specifically, each movie is different... which is something else that old school (not RS specifically) often forgets.

If you want to ask me for a specific opinion about a specific film or set of films, feel free. To try to respond with any depth in the broad context of your question is asking me to write a small book for you.

And J-Mc... don't really care what your perception is... you have no basis for having it (about almost anything)... which never keeps you from offering it as gospel. I wrote that sentence in with some specific people in mind and regretted it, mostly because I knew it would be idiot fodder. And it is. My error.

Also, Bob Shaye is an owner of the studio... not getting fired... and the situation with Jackson is complicated beyond Shaye, but is more personal than business and should get resolved by contrition. It probably will not. But time will probably clear out New Line's claim... more than a year or two of time. Still, the studio will not thrive or die on one film, no matter how big.

Finally, the situation out there is that crap movies get sold every weekend. That is 90% of the job. And the people who are best at it are the most coveted. People should really resist the temptation to simplify. This was not a "someone's got to go" moment for the studio. This was a long, slow, painful process for the entire place and Russell deserved better, even it meant a quicker death. He gave them his best.

"But, I would definitely blame output rather than marketing for the failure of those films."

Naive.

And why do I always have to open the "sign in" link in a different window to comment on this site??

Well, fair enough David, albeit if your op still has a fair tad of the umbrage about it: but your main point is absolutely germane: how does one kick someone for failing to market a project they never believed in in the first place? What quintessence of myrrh has been regifted?

Jeez, DP, I certainly didn't mean what I said to be insulting. I'd apologize but I don't think you'd accept it.

Kris, perhaps it is naive especially since I followed up that sentence by chiding the man for not being able to sell the one good movie they've made lately (Little Children). I just don't think it helps when you have to sell a movie like The Last Mimzy which came out on the heels of Bridge to Terabithia and was not nearly as good. But the larger point is that he's done a pretty good job in the past, but it's like in sports: has he hit the wall because he's reached a certain age or is it just a down year? But, I will say that the poster for The Number 23 was horribly conceived, it looked like an outtake from Liar Liar and even though that movie was absolutely dreadful, I think it could have been sold better.

Oh, here's a question: does Bob Shaye actually have some ownership stake in New Line? I thought it was completely owned by Time Warner.

I'd say that 75% of movie posters aren't that good or interesting and if your movie is shite then you've got more chance of having shite marketing.

Not insulted, J-Mc... bored by the behavior.

There is an audience for everything, Noah. That is the trick, the art even, of marketing.

DP, I can live with that.

Yes indeed Kris, which helps explain the Wild Hogs and Norbits of the world. I wonder when studios are gonna just decide to just spend a couple hundred thousand on a movie and then fifty or sixty million marketing the shit out of it.

Thwere is no art in marketing, only an arc: and it takes in water faster than EVAN ALMIGHTY.

thanks, mr. poland, for the response. i'll look up the work of these marketing wunderkinds. i'm just puzzled by movie marketing itself. Hollywood has been so talented at marketing rotten movies...it really is an art. yet they freeze up so often when they have a truly terrific film to promote.

I am slightly confused - has Hairspray really underperformed that badly? I know that Dave thought it would do about well over $100 million, but I thought the prevailing wisdom was that it was doing much better than expected. Certainly when I saw the trailers, I thought $60 - 80 million would be the limit. Also, unlike many recent musicals, Hairspray has been a big hit over here in the UK and I think will travel much better than others (eg Dreamgirls).

What does 'ankle' mean as a verb? Does it just mean leaving or does it imply being fired or something?

As in: "Russell Schwartz, New Line Marketing Topper For Six Years, Ankling At End Of August"

I'm wondering if a drawn-out release might've benefitted Hairspray more, but then they'd risk having a bomb like The Producers, where the drawn-out release failed to get buzz going. I thought Hairspray was great, though, so it might've worked. I thought it was meeting expectations too. Back in April, it looked like a $15 million opener to me. It's holding its own against a Sandler flick. Not bad. (Even if the Sandler flick is.)

as far as a slow roll-out on a musical...that would make sense if it were somewhat obscure or without stars, but HAIRSPRAY is loaded with big names and it's a great family entertainment. still, a musical requires careful handling. it's encouraging to see that it rose to the #2 position during the week.

r scott r:

just leaving. not sure where the origin of the term comes from though

Ankling: It's Variety speak. Like pix, crix and helmer.

FYI:

http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=slanguage

if a sports team sucks, the coach goes. simplistic, analogy, i know. but is the coach on the field actually playing? no. some of the players should be fired. not like that unfortunately.

Last Mimzy and all the other awful movies that led to RS's firing -- i wonder of the Jr Execs and VPs of production/development who actually "worked" (haha) on these films (ie, giving useless notes to the hack writers THEY hired) still have their jobs? Not a rhetorical question, but i fear some still do.

"Their weak output seems to roughly coincide with the post-Mike DeLuca era. "

Gee Jeff. I agree with you. [the sky has cracked, stars falling from the sky, leopards and ignuanas mating together]

But I do disagree with this Jeff:

"I'd apologize but I don't think you'd accept it."

Your Ma/Pop/guardian/PO should have taught you that if you should apologize [real men and real women do], you do it regardless of the reception.

Keep it to two words usually helps [that you mean it].

Gee, Lota, I agree with you all the time.
Of course, you are right, and I shouldn't have said anything at all.

Thanks for the responses and the link to the slanguage dictionary. I finally know where to go if I get confused between whammo and socko. ;-)

The term you're looking for is "lurker". Back in the days when I was a regular at GEnie, one of the moderators casually mentioned that the lurker to poster ratio is usually ten to one.

"Also, Bob Shaye is an owner of the studio... not getting fired..."

David, just a follow-up to your post and Jeff's question to the above remark:

Is Bob Shaye the owner of New Line, or does TimeWarner own it?

Which leads me to ask: does Bob Shaye possess true autonomy running New Line, or does TW CEO Dick Parsons have any say on the issue?

I remember when Bob Daley and Terry Semel "left" Warner Brothers back in 1999. On the record, they said the decision was their call. Off the record, then-TW CEO Jerry Levin and TW board member Ted Turner supposedly were very unhappy with the studio's numbers. Star-laden vehicles like Costner's The Postman and Kubrick's Cruise/Kidman pairing Eyes Wide Shut did not perform as expected.

Who really pulls the trigger on these matters?

Well, of course Semel & Daley leaving was not their choice. And ironically, one of New Line's darkest periods was when Ted Turner was pushing them towards bigger budget films like Lost In Space.

Bob has true autonomy, yes. And ownership, though indeed, it is a subsidiary of Time-Warner. New Line has been getting partial private funding outside of TW for production for years. And while I cannot offer Bob & Michael's specific contractual details, I believe they are not in a position to be fired, though the company is not wholly their own with no corporate management to answer to. In other words... a tap dance, but one where Bob and Michael control their destiny in a real way.

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.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: