The Hot Blog

This should effectivly kill off the limping corpse of touchstone pictures. Old Dogs will come out, Wild Hogs two, step up three times, and then nothing but television.

Old Dogs is Disney branded, not Touchstone.

Speculation: Where does Miramax fit into all this? Is their slate kaput? Pink slips forthcoming?

Will we see Snider at the helm of WDS in the near future? Surely she's itching to be more than the head of a production company that releases 406 movies a year.

Miramax has its own distribution, which was in place well before the Mouse House.

Also for the record: "Confessions of a Shopaholic" (opening next week) is a Touchstone title. Buena Vista was renamed Walt Disney Pictures Distribution 2-3 years ago.

It was actually renamed Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, but that's quibbling.

Good point about DW Animation. That will be fun.

I've bet good money that it's not Sony buying MGM.

As for GE, it's not a matter of interest, it's a matter of money. No matter how well NBCU might have done, the company has no capital to expand with. Immelt's not playing kissy-face with the govt because he's a patriot. They're insolvent.

"And as Jerry Bruckheimer has experienced, Disney’s willingness to let their stars do their work without much interference… real supportive thinking from Dick Cook and Oren Aviv, not ego-free, but conscious that strong players need their room… will be a breath of fresh air for a DreamWorks who had a painful time interacting with the egos at Paramount."

This is largely BS. For all their non-interference, Disney will more than make up for it by imposing what I can only describe as "ideological limitations" which may prove to be more and more limiting over the years. There's plenty of ego in the Mouse House, even if it's hidden behind a singular corporate policy. (But you see you already assume that DW will have an easier time at Disney because of the kinds of movies you think they'll be making. That in itself implies certain compromises).

This is what drove Harvey out. It's not how they made movies. It's what they made and how they went about promoting them.

No, what worries me the most about this whole deal are the projects that will come out of this. I cannot help but worry that Disneys UNIFORM COMMITMENT TO MAKING CRAP will spead over to DW or will make certain projects more likely to be done. I want less NATIONAL TREASURE AND HOTEL FOR DOGS. I want more Minority Report and Munich.

"GE is just not interested in investing to make a bigger NBC/Universal. And they are probably 100% correct, given their mindset."

I'd be more inclined to say that they kind of wanted to. Kind of. But they were afriad. Because that's the reality of business. It has to make sense on paper. It has to make sense immediatly. And they couldn't prove it.

DreamWorks is a. either A. good partner or B. Not a good partner. In the long run it cannot be neither or both. The cost of commitment is high but it's not that high for what I consider to be a promising company.

"GE, smartly, didn’t do the deal that Paramount was willing to do for DreamWorks back in 2005. Now, GE, putting even more pressure on the NBC/Universal division, was again unwilling to invest in DreamWorks."

That's a wrong way to word things. You are not mentioning the fact that had Paramound been smarter and less egotistical they would have kept DreamWorks and had they kept it they would have made profited from it in a long run. Alas, they lost it too soon and this more than any other terms in the contracts was where they lost the most. After all, as you've said "Under Stacey Snider, DreamWorks is a stable, responsible production house".

"I don’t expect to see a Disney logo anywhere near the front of the DreamWorks titles"
My point exactly."

"though the elephant in the room will soon be the future distribution plans for DreamWorks Animation, once their Paramount deal is over. "

Oh come on, DreamWorks Animation will probably find suitors faster than any company save for Pixar. Heck, even if Geffen wanted to sever all ties with Paramound he probably wouldn't be able to force anyone else to comply with that now that he has only a marginal association with the company.

Well, let me dial back a little. Since I don't know the exact tearms of the deal I cannot claim that DW or Spielberg would be a GREAT partner when it came to sharing the wealth. I just believe that DW has the potential to make that wealth, Spielberg is a big asset, that is all.

When you mention the three cash stable studios, are you referring only to the film side? I didn't think Sony had much of anything on the TV side and I thought their foreign TV was consolidating next to nothing. Since electronics have been down, would that have much affect on the studio side? Well, the PS3's haven't been flying off the shelves. I don't know what the TV's are doing.

Also, news just came out about Newscorp taking a mega writedown. I think TV rev was down, which I'd assume would be from affiliates having to trade ad time for magic beans. There was also mention of film revs being down, though I have to admit I can't remember if that was a year to year comparison or quarterly number. There was also mention of the consideration of layoffs as well as the Wall St Journal being a big sink hole. It made it seem as things were rancid across the board. I don't believe that there was any mention of MySpace. I was hearing that a lot of companies were focusing solely on the internets for advertising. Considering the risk that accompanies web dollar ads, I'd think a behemouth like MySpace would attract more $ since it's the closest thing to a blue chipper the relatively young internet has. I know that's not end all cure all but can the studio film arm be all that secure if the other divisions are taking it in the shorts?

If anyone should buy MGM: it's FOX. They are already in bed with MGM when it comes to DVD. Why not take it a step further, and merge the two libraries that have already been merging over the last 3 years? It just makes sense in term of FOX's commitment to home video, and their commitment so far to the MGM titles they have most lovingly special editioned.

IO - Fox doesn't have the money to justify buyng MGM especially with the downturn in DVD.

"Revenue fell 8.4 percent to $7.87 billion, also below the average Wall Street forecast of $8.35 billion.

"It's advertising and DVDs," said Miller Tabak + Co analyst David Joyce. "They're more exposed to advertising than you want to be in this kind of climate."

Triple -

"Fox Interactive Media posted an operating loss of $38 million, in part due to the launch of MySpace Music.

One bright spot was cable network, whose operating profit rose 27 percent to $428 million on strength at the Fox News Channel, the Big Ten Network and Fox International Channels.

They took on bath on local affiliate sales, i.e - regional auto spots which were down around 70% IIRC.

I'm not sure if they're going to follow NBCU and dump network status. It's highly possible except they put a good chunk towards HD already, unlike NBCU.

Roman - DreamWorks is either A. a good partner or B. Not a good partner. In the long run it cannot be neither or both. The cost of commitment is high but it's not that high for what I consider to be a promising company.

This is just like your last post about film being a messy business. How does "promising" cut it when you're insolvent? And yes, GE is.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/story.aspx?guid={9C80DBE8-8684-4DD8-B523-EE22E605C93B}&siteid=rss

They're only alive today because of the November float...

http://www.politics.com/news/2759/139_billion_bailout_for_ge_capital/

GE's money woes are not the same as Newscorp or even TWX. GE is apart of the credit/banking meltdown.

Spielberg jumped because DW was turning into a glorified shingle. JP Morgan wouldn't match Reliant because no one is doing debt financing. You have it or you don't. NBCU doesn't have it. Disney does. I know Newscorp wanted to make a DW deal but they didn't have it either. I'm sure TWX would have jumped on it, but they're not financing jackshit from their own pockets. Only one company had cash-on-hand.

You concern over Disney infecting DW is totally subjective. Spielberg could take the chance with a Munich because of the Paramount deal. That safety net doesn't exist with Reliant for a myriad of reasons. So fears of a Mickey overload peer-pressuring DW into safe films are a distant second to the realities of DW's state of play. Maybe Spielberg wanted to be at Disney because they're the best operation in town?

Hopefully this can help Disney stock, since my wife spontaneously purchased 100 shares around New Year's.

Strong comments... even on the stuff I would disagree with... thanks for that.

The thing about DW is that it will never really be anyone's partner, as such. The ego of the enterprise is too big to give an inch. I don't see that as a bad thing, necessarily. And it is why I do not expect Disney to interfere in their production philosophy in any way… except perhaps when it comes to budget on some of the bigger movies that should be smaller movies (see: Tropic Thunder, which even if you loved it was way to high budget for a small concept comedy).

The reason DWA is an elephant in the room is that going to Disney would be problematic. Or would it? Distribution revenue is distribution revenue. If DWA is going to compete anyway, why isn’t it a smart play for Disney to control all of animation distribution? Is it really a monopoly issue? Is there is a studio that could sell the product better than Disney? Is there anyone else who can take full advantage of the character values? If the animation slotting is March, June, July, October, November each year, doesn’t a Disney, a Pixar, and two DWAs make sense with Fox eating the fifth slot each year?

I don’t know… I think the possibilities are fascinating.

Harvey didn’t leave Disney over Disney ego… Harvey left Disney over his $700 million annual budget being slashed after he had managed to build it to that year by year by year. Can anyone actually still argue that The Weinsteins at $700m a year would be a good investment?

News Corp’s writedown is a correction. The fundamentals of the company are pretty sound.

Sony can’t really afford to eat MGM on its own anymore than it could four years ago. But the price will be lower this time, Mary Parent will bring some value with her slate, and there are crossover interests (like Bond). Fox buying MGM would be a 100% library buy, which means the price is still too high.

"This is just like your last post about film being a messy business. How does "promising" cut it when you're insolvent?"

Martin, I was talking strictly long term. And then I admitted that not everyone could afford to take this chance (yes, today's realities are quite grim). So we are 100% in agreement here.

And as for the "messy business" comment, you are way oversimplifying what I said. I doubt you fully understood what I was going for there. But then, a lot does seem to get lost in semantics related issues on this blog.

And no, I don't think Spielberg wanted to be at Disney. He may be "satisfied" with the deal but all other things being equal he'd rather be at Universal.

"You concern over Disney infecting DW is totally subjective."

No, it's totally valid. Disney is evil, man, they are like a contagious disease, I'm telling you ;).
In all seriosness though, while we can argue whether or not "infecting" is the right word here, I think it would be wrong to think that a production company's slate/budgeting isn't going to be affected by it's choice of distributor. And it's twice as true when you are doing business with Disney. The way I see it Disney is like Walmart - they may be doing a good job pushing your product but when you do business with them they bring a lot of additional baggage to the table. Maybe I'm being too pessimistic. I don't really like Disney. And like I admitted before, for DW compromises are unavoidable because DW is no longer as independent as it used to be so it may have much less to do with the fact that it's with Disney and more to do with the fact that it has less money.

"The thing about DW is that it will never really be anyone's partner, as such."

Here's that semantics issue again. I agree with you but the reason I chose to use that word is because I am inversting it with a different meaning. DW isn't independent and money flow = (soft) partner.

And no, I don't think that's a bad thing either. Fact is, I care about DreamWorks (you can laugh at me now but at one time I was writing for the DreamWorks fansite and was the only contributor outside of it's owner - I know I laugh at it too ;) ) so I'd like to see it succeed not just in a fanacial sense but in the kinds of movies they, theoretically want to be making (assuming they even care anymore). I bet Spielberg is tired of outside forces (the triple punch of the DW Sale, the strike, market collapse) intefering with his plans in the last 5 years to an unprecedented degree. I bet he thought that Chicago 7 and other projectwould be in the can by now and I bet he's pissed that it's not. 10 years ago he passed on "Harry Potter." Now he's pondering doing "39 Clues"... Enough said.

Also David, I sort of disagree with your reading of the Miramax/Harvey Weinstein situation in a sense that there's more to it than just money. Yes, they drastically cut his annual budget but do you really think he expected that Wienstein Co. would get that much more money on its own? You gotta take his personality into account too.

And the last question, where do you think DW will be five years from now? Will they always be on the lookout for that next great distributor (and will that create internal conflicts) or will they finally feel at home? Will they even be around at all?

I have my own thoughts about this but I think a lot will depend on the overall shape the the industry and the global economy is in.

Roman - "I doubt you fully understood what I was going for there.

I got it, but I let it slide because in the same meandering post, you said Spielberg is known to keep things fiscally in check. Jaws, CE3K, 1941, Raiders, Hook, Crystal Skull...your idea of messy only plays out if film history starts in the mid/late 1980's. The process is messy, yes. Not everything goes according to plan so contingency comes into play. But cost escalation has skyrocketed beyond the normal incline of the previous sixty years since the introduction of CGVFX. The mega-budget anomaly has become a norm and what does the industry have to show for it? Marginal survival and a dependency on outside investors because their own game is even too rich for them to play.

So we are 100% in agreement here.

No we're not. Even your dial back was an inaccurate reading of GE/NBCU/UMG's current situation. You think they were debating profits. I'm telling you that before the U.S Govt threw GE a lifeline, Wall St was demanding a breakup with NBCU on the block, Immelt and Zucker gone. Zucker did the original DW deal because it was a way to secure his fucking job if they were spun off. Zukcker was gone if the Olympics didn't pan out. The backend money he promised Spielberg never existed. That's what was discovered when JP Morgan walked away. Spielberg went to Zucker and said "I'll need that now" - and they weren't good for it.

"The way I see it Disney is like Walmart..."

Good god almighty. You're as predictable as a box of crayons. You have disdain for two of the only solvent companies around because you feel they stifle artistic expression. Yet, without these companies, you wouldn't collect an f'n check.

If Disney didn't have Pirates money to float DW, then DW would become a shingle that couldn't employ and fraction that it can now. The working pool at Disney/DW now frees up positions on other studio projects that will employ more people. But you'd rather have more creative freedom, even if it means a company goes under, like Bob & Harvey have with Grindhouse. That bomb unemployed how many people?

But let me dial that back. You keep thinking I'm some VFX drone that you can pedantically talked down to if that makes you feel better.

You work in VFX, Martin S?

Martin, not only did I never assume anything about you prior to this post (you are thinking of someone else) I never felt like I was talking down to you either. Both of these things, however, will now change.

"If Disney didn't have Pirates money to float DW, then DW would become a shingle that couldn't employ and fraction that it can now. The working pool at Disney/DW now frees up positions on other studio projects that will employ more people. But you'd rather have more creative freedom, even if it means a company goes under"

Don't put words in my mouth. You can't certainly mean what you write, no one can possibly be that dumb. In case it didn't come through to you I was just expressing my disappointment that things happened how they happened. Call it wishful thinking. I was just hypothetically talking about what I wished happened. I realize the reality of the sitaion perfectly well. I personally know people who work or worked for DreamWorks. Of course, I don't want the company to go down and and know that ultimately the Disney deal is a good thing for them. But, other things being equal, I'd rather they were with Universal. It wasn't about facts. It was about my sentiments. Got the difference now?

And as for facts, I know what happened with GE and NBC, etc. no worse than you do. There were no revelations and quite a few oversimplifications there. Not only did you not understant what I meant by my "dailing back", you were obviosly looking for an opening to make a shot at me. The problem is that you and idiots like yourself assume things based on just a few sentences and make up for the rest with lies. I don't have the time or energy to spell things out for you.

"I got it, but I let it slide because in the same meandering post, you said Spielberg is known to keep things fiscally in check."

And you want to argue you with that? I didn't phraze it quite like that but, yeah, that's what I think. All of the movies you've mentioned (save for Indy 4 which really didn't belong) were at least 20 years old and they represent but a small portion of his filmography (and all of them, including 1941 made a profit).

Considering the huge scopes of the projects he contantly picked and relative to other directors Spielberg is a budget maximizer (and stayed under $130 million until Indy 4). And I would argue that if "War of the Worlds" had been directed by anyone else it would have easily had a budget closer to $200 million. Fact is, you are talking about a guy who picks challenging projects so imho its amazing he didn't have more problems than he did. Sure had his fair share of catastophes (he had plenty, especially in the early years, I'm not at all trying to hide that) but he's probably the least wasteful of all top directors and this is one of the reasons why his personal fortunes have steadily increased and studios accepted his, often quite demanding back end terms).

So yes, OVERALL I think this is what Spielberg is known for. In the last twenty years or so he kept his budgets in check. And I dare you to prove me wrong. And I double dare you to name big budget contermporaty director with better credentials. In the meantime, I call bullshit and will call you a dumbass.

"Good god almighty. You're as predictable as a box of crayons. You have disdain for two of the only solvent companies around because you feel they stifle artistic expression. Yet, without these companies, you wouldn't collect an f'n check. "

What THE FUCK is that supposed to mean? I don't know who you think you are but that is the most embarrasing thing I've read on this blog.

I may dislike both Disney and Walmart though not for reasons you think. That's not the point. Of my analogy offended you that much because you think Walmart supports your lifestyle or the country's economy all the more power to you. You analogies are as poetic as a teapot full of puke.

And stop throwing around the word "messy" and labeling me it. I may have used it once, and I certainly didn't give as much weight to it as you do. Yes, it paints a reductionist and shallow type of an argument and that's exactly what you are doing now. You are way off in you readings. I am not going to be forced to defend the perspective that doesn't represent me.

Like everyone, I may take shortcuts (some topics would requite pages) in my replies and frequently I do run the risk of being misunderstood. However, at no point had it been as severe as it is with you.

and that would be roman ftw....

CUZ IT'S THE TAKIN' OF THE PELHAM 1 2 3!

Where's the goddamn PELHAM 123 TRAILER?

Didn't they film that shit a year ago and it's coming out in four months?

TRAILER. NOW. PLEASE.

Here's a question: a library buy is sort of justified by the future right? It's all about content. If FOX have their library and the MGM library, that has to help their situation right? It just seems logical -- albeit expensive -- for FOX to take the leap. It's not like they do not already own the licensing on MGM. Why not take the financial hit now for possible future gain?

Because February 2009 is exactly the wrong time for corporations to be taking any major financial hit.

Roman - "Martin, not only did I never assume anything about you prior to this post (you are thinking of someone else) I never felt like I was talking down to you either. Both of these things, however, will now change.

Really?

http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/archives/2009/01/super_money.html

Go back and read your own post. Like I said, I let it go last time because you're an unfocused writer. Here I was polite in the first exchange, but once again, you went to the condescending tone, after you were flat-out wrong.

"It wasn't about facts. It was about my sentiments. Got the difference now?

I got it before.

"And as for facts, I know what happened with GE and NBC, etc. no worse than you do...

I didn't lie about anything. You, twice, asserted NBCU balked at DW over the good/bad of the deal in place. Neither time, did GE's current situation come into your equation. So, no, I don't buy you're as informed as me on this, because this is what I do.

"I didn't phraze it quite like that...

OK. For accuracy...

"Very few "big" directors like Spielberg are so capable that they were Historically able to save noticible cash by keeping budgets in check while still deliviring spectacles...

Now, you say...

All of the movies you've mentioned (save for Indy 4 which really didn't belong) were at least 20 years old and they represent but a small portion of his filmography...

You used the word historically, not me. You established the criteria. Now you drop it because, historically, you are wrong.

Considering the huge scopes of the projects...and relative to other directors...

You're talking process, and that's your opinion, which is fine. But it's not fact.

but he's probably the least wasteful of all top directors...

No. That's Eastwood who always under-budget and ahead-of-schedule. So, I think the criteria you want is "blockbuster directors". Then, yeah, you could try and make the argument, but a person's entire track record is still theirs to own.

In the last twenty years or so he kept his budgets in check. And I dare you to prove me wrong. And I double dare you...

Well, that confirms a lot. At least you're admitting that your "facts" are based on short-term events.

What THE FUCK is that supposed to mean?

It means you're predictable. Your disdain for Disney predictably lends itself to dislike for Wal-Mart. It's not based on logic or reason, but emotion. Everything you've argued is based on conjecture of emotion. And when you don't know the facts, you wave the point off as irrelevant.

You know process, Roman. You know how a factory operates to build a widget, you don't know how a factory operates to stay open. You argue as if they're the same, and when shown they're not, you meltdown.

At least IO understands and admits his arguments are based on passion. When we cross swords, it's because we approach things from different viewpoints, but we're both aware of this.

I was really hoping you would have some breadth of knowledge. Too bad.

Jeff - I know a number of VFX people. I have a working knowledge, but no, it's not my daily gig.

IO - Jeff's right. To do it now could not be justified unless MGM worked out some deal where it was more of a merger with an exit strategy that lead to MGM being absorbed by Fox a few years down the road. Otherwise, Newscorp doesn't have the cash.

Are library buys generally done w/all cash? I guess the results of that would be kinda skewed since just about all lib buys would be of distressed companies. Even still, a company not as big as MGM but maybe a good decade or two of product, would it be expected that the sale be done w/cash? 80%? 60%?

The current owners bought MGM for 5Bil and turned down a 3Bil offer saying they want what they paid and nothing less. So they can't get funding and don't want 3Bil. The only other option is a merger of some sorts. Lionsgate seems to be most the likely.

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: