An Avalanche of Carter Post-mortems

Failures are usually hurriedly swept under the rug and quickly forgotten. But in Hollywood, where schadenfreude abounds, there is nothing like a giant flop to inspire entertainment writers from all corners to weigh in. But the resulting lengthy post-mortems just further illustrate that movie writers, while emotional and expressive, are not particularly analytical.  The comments from actual financial analysts who follow Disney's stock give more useful insight in far fewer words.  In short, other than strengthening the case for closer budget supervision, a $200M loss won't have much of an impact on Disney's operations.

Disney sells fairy tales and by their very nature, most Disney films will be big budget productions with expensive VFX.   It's major 2012 productions are The Lone Ranger, which is budgeted at $215M ( down from $250M) and Maleficent which is likely also in the $200M range.  The budgets per se  aren't the problem, it's keeping them within the range that can be supported by projected revenues.  The assumptions that go into estimating the revenues are the critical and volatile elements.

Hollywood flop sweat: What caused the latest box-office duds?

March 20, 2012 |  6:00 am

What do A-listers Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Michael Mann, David Milch and Andrew Stanton have in common as of late? If you said major Hollywood duds, you’ve been paying attention.

Disney on Monday said it expects to lose $200 million on Stanton’s “John Carter” — a huge disappointment from the wizard who co-wrote or directed an amazing string of Pixar hits, including the “Toy Story” films, “Wall-E” and “Finding Nemo.”

HBO canceled “Luck” last week after the death of three horses during production. Making matters worse, the costly racetrack drama by the veteran TV writer Milch (“NYPD Blue,” “Deadwood”) and filmmaker Mann (“Heat,” “The Insider”) wasn’t connecting with viewers, with recent episodes drawing 500,000 viewers, barely half of what HBO gets for its unsung “Eastbound & Down” comedy series.

This follows the cancellation of Spielberg’s “Terra Nova,” the hugely ambitious Fox TV dinosaur drama — its pilot alone cost $15 million — that flamed out after one season, victim to flagging ratings.

And who can forget Scorsese’s “Hugo,” the Oscar-nominated valentine to the early days of moviemaking that cost upward of $170 million to make, but made only $73 million in the U.S., and even less overseas?

Have all these guys been drinking from the same poisoned well? Or is there something in common about all these projects that explains why they went bust?

I was a huge fan of both “Hugo” and “Luck,” less so when it came to “John Carter” and “Terra Nova.” But regardless of my own critical take, it was pretty obvious all of the shows lacked a key ingredient: a rooting interest in the central characters. Whom did we really care about? Not Dustin Hoffman in “Luck,” who barely came into focus until way too late in the season. Not “John Carter’s” title character, whom Chicago Tribune critic Michael Phillips called “a flat, inexpressive protagonist played by a flat, inexpressive actor.” Not anyone in “Terra Nova,” which seemed engineered to please every possible demographic known to man. Not “Hugo’s” wide-eyed young boy, who was almost as inexpressive as John Carter.

The ideas at the heart of these stories skew old in an era when audiences skew young. For all its cutting-edge visual effects, “John Carter” was based on a century-old idea of adventure from Edgar Rice Burroughs. “Hugo” was set in 1930s Paris with a story that revolved around film pioneer Georges Méliès. Set at Santa Anita racetrack, “Luck” focused on a sport that has almost no resonance with anyone under 40 (and featured two marvelous actors, Hoffman and Nick Nolte, who are in their 70s).

“Terra Nova” had younger on-screen talent, but the New York Times’ Mike Hale accurately described the show as being “without doubt the squarest, most old-fashioned series to hit TV since, well, since Spielberg’s own ‘Falling Skies.’”

So why didn’t anyone stop these guys any sooner? It isn’t as if each project didn’t come with a host of bright, pulsing warning lights. Disney got its hands on “John Carter” only after Paramount bailed on the project, having seen a string of top filmmakers, including Robert Rodriguez, Guillermo del Toro and Jon Favreau, struggle unsuccessfully to crack the story. Producer Graham King had to finance “Hugo” on his own when studio after studio passed on splitting the cost. “Terra Nova” had all sorts of writing staff shakeups and production delays. And on “Luck,” Mann and Milch were so unwilling to compromise their visions that they ended up hatching a nonaggression pact, with Milch having total control over the scripts, Mann complete autonomy when it came to the filmmaking.

Stanton’s track record was unblemished by failure, but you can’t say the same thing about Scorsese, Spielberg, Mann or Milch — they’ve all had ups and downs when it comes to commercial success. Milch, for example, was coming off of an HBO series, “John From Cincinnati,” so convoluted that even many of his biggest fans chalked it off as a head-scratcher.

But if you’re a studio executive, it’s hard to turn down an opportunity to work with a gifted filmmaker with a closet full of Oscars and Emmys. As one talent agent put it: “When you spend most of your time making Adam Sandler movies or reality TV shows, do you really want to be the one who takes a pass when Spielberg or Scorsese walks in the door?”

Several insiders I spoke to argued that today’s studio and network chiefs are more confused than ever about what their audience wants, a lack of certainty that encourages them to look for answers — and cede control — to high-powered creative minds.

“If you look at these situations, especially the one at Disney with ‘John Carter,’ you see inexperienced executives who were afraid of the people who were working for them,” said TV and film producer Gavin Polone (“Curb Your Enthusiasm,” “Panic Room”).

Polone argued that executives with years of crisis management under their belts are more likely to make tough calls. He cited the example of “Moneyball,” which was just days away from going into production with Brad Pitt in the starring role and Steven Soderbergh at the helm when Sony studio chief Amy Pascal pulled the plug until she could hire a new director.

“There’s no way that was an easy decision, especially with a talented filmmaker and a major movie star involved,” said Polone. “But Amy clearly didn’t believe in the direction the film was going, so she put on the brakes and went in a different direction.”

Rich Ross, who ran the Disney Channel before taking charge at the studio less than two years ago, was new to the game of crossing swords with heavyweight talent, making it perhaps much harder to rein in a runaway film production. Of course, Graham King had made three previous movies with Scorsese yet still couldn’t stop him from going tens of millions of dollars over budget.

You could say this illustrates the oldest cliché in the book — no one knows anything. But it also demonstrates that betting on A-list showbiz talent doesn’t guarantee a better outcome than picking the favorite in the NCAA basketball tournament pool. Sometimes, even when you’re in the room with the most incandescent talent in the galaxy, you just have to say no.

--Patrick Goldstein


 

20 March 2012 Last updated at 10:10 ET

A brief history of big screen flops

By Emma Saunders Entertainment reporter, BBC News

 

John Carter stars Taylor Kitsch, from US drama Friday Night Lights

Fantasy film John Carter is on course to be the biggest movie flop of all time - but which films have met a similar fate in recent years?

Disney admits it expects to lose $200m (£126m) on the science fiction film.
The Mars-based epic, based on Edgar Rice Burroughs' galactic adventurer, has been panned by critics.
And that is despite being directed by Andrew Stanton, the CGI genius behind Oscar-winning movies Finding Nemo and Wall-E.
Admittedly, it was his first foray into live action but you might think that a big-name director would guarantee box office success.
But there is no sure-fire formula.
John Carter is not the only movie which has failed to live up to the hype in the history of cinema.
In fact, it is not even the only Mars-themed movie to have been cursed.
According to the Hollywood Reporter, last year's biggest box office flop was another Disney movie, Mars Needs Moms, which cost $150m to make and only took $39m at the box office.

 

Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck were an A-list Hollywood couple

 

Red Planet, starring Carrie-Anne Moss and Val Kilmer, was another science fiction film flop.
Released in 2000, it lost $82.4m worldwide, taking inflation into account.
Indeed, Disney may even have been aware of the curse - it deleted the words "Of Mars" from John Carter's original title, fearing it was box office poison.
But The House Of Mouse, as Disney is known by its staff, might have been considered brave for considering a movie based on Mars at all.
The studio has now been stung by Mars movies on four separate occassions - with John Carter, Mars Needs Moms and earlier box office flops Mission To Mars (2000) and My Favourite Martian (1999).
Setting aside sci-fi, even A-list stars cannot provide a cast-iron guarantee. Take Gigli in 2003.
It starred Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck - a couple at the time and dubbed Bennifer by the gossip columns.
But after earning $4 million in its opening weekend, it suffered a second weekend drop of over 80%. Gigli was withdrawn from cinemas after only three weeks, one of the shortest theatrical runs on record for a big Hollywood film.

“Start Quote

I've always ignored what the budget is”

-- Andrew Stanton Director of John Carter

 

Kevin Costner had an exemplary movie record in the early 1990s - he won Oscars for best picture and best director with Dances With Wolves and went on to star in hits such as JFK, The Bodyguard and Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.

But his 1995 film Waterworld is probably one of the most renowned flops in cinema history.
He followed it up with post-apocalyptic movie The Postman - but instead of getting Costner back on track, it cost $80m to make but took just over $17m worldwide.
Even good reviews cannot ensure box office success.
Disney's 2002 science fiction version of Treasure Island - entitled Treasure Planet - was critically acclaimed, but the $180 million movie earned only $38 million at the US box office.
World record holder
Some flops have even put their studios out of business.
Take 2001's animated science fiction movie Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within - a loss of nearly $82m was followed by the closure of Square Pictures the following year.
Movies that have suffered the ignominy of losing over $100m include comedy Town & Country in 2001, The 13th Warrior in 1999 and 2005's Sahara, starring Matthew McConaughey and Penelope Cruz.
In Sahara's case, its downfall was not poor box office receipts - it took $119m overall - but its huge budget of $241 million.
One of the worst box office flops was The Adventures of Pluto Nash in 2002, starring Eddie Murphy.

 

Sahara did Penelope Cruz's film career no harm

 

Panned by the critics, it took just $7.1 million but cost $120m to make.
Just ahead of it, The Alamo, starring Dennis Quaid and Billy Bob Thornton, lost $120m.
But topping them all is 1995's Cutthroat Island, which lost just under $147m, landing it a listing in the Guinness World Book of Records.
It starred Geena Davis as a pirate and was directed by her then husband, Renny Harlin.
John Carter looks set to break this record.
In an interview with Mark Lawson on Radio 4's Front Row earlier this month, Andrew Stanton said: "I've always worked with huge budgets, I mean the truth is, this is all I have ever known."
"Having said that, I've always ignored what the budget is. I've never felt any gain to be worrying about numbers." he added.
The pioneer of computer-generated animated films added that he was only interested in making a good film.

Rich Ross and the ‘John Carter’ Debacle – Disney Takes it on the Chin

Published: March 20, 2012 @ 10:20 am

By Sharon Waxman

Everyone at the Walt Disney Company, studio chief Rich Ross most of all, had been braced for bad news around “John Carter.”

But few of those observing the company were expecting the swift doomsday sentence handed out by Disney on Monday, that the science fiction tale would lose $200 million, making it one of the biggest financial flops in movie history.
Two hundred million? That is a breathtaking sum, a humdinger, a gobsmacker.
I can’t think of a similar announcement for a single movie in recent history. In fact, most studios try to bury losses for individual pictures in their financial statements. And they always argue that long-tail revenue streams mitigate a weak box office.
Not on this one.
The fact that Disney, the most tightly wound movie studio in the industry, publicly announced the loss within 10 days of the film's opening means that it wants to soften the blow on Wall Street that will surely be coming.
This also means that our estimates of a $250 million budget and $100 million in marketing probably undershot the true number by quite a bit.

Since the movie already has taken in almost $200 million globally, not an insignificant sum, and there will still be revenue rolling in for months from ancillary, this means that costs must have run far higher than publicly stated.
There will be fallout. Ross is unlikely to be in danger of losing his job as chairman of the movie studio.
But there is no doubt that it ratchets up the pressure on his tenure as movie chief.
Ross, an affable guy with Goofy-like smile, has so far not been able to claim any major victories under his leadership. Last year, he had to live with the flop “Mars Needs Moms,” while the massive success of “Pirates” redounded to Jerry Bruckheimer and the franchise he built.

Studio executives are quick to point out that “John Carter” originated under former studio chief Dick Cook. But they can’t ignore the fact that marketing for the film was handled by the current regime.
That’s a big Achilles heel. Arguably Ross’ most important decision since taking over the studio two years ago was hiring a marketing president. Hollywood outsider MT Carney, was his out-of-the-box choice for marketing chief, and she is now out of the job.
That choice never took root in Hollywood, Carney suffered from a whisper campaign over her abilities that made her damaged goods from Day One, and Ross badly handled her departure, shopping the job out from under her – a story that we broke here at TheWrap.
It wasn’t easy to find a replacement. He finally went with Ricky Strauss, a competent executive who has not had a marketing role at a major studio in years and then was handed the challenge of “John Carter.”
Not a day at the beach for anyone involved.
One bright spot: Ross can claim to have distributed and marketed “The Help,” an Oscar favorite and box office hit. But I’m going to guess that our commenters are going to say this was a DreamWorks success, not Disney’s.
So from here on in, the scrutiny will be laser focused on Ross and whether he can lead the studio where it needs to go.
Disney’s statement on Monday focused on the future.
"As we look forward to the second half of the year, we are excited about the upcoming releases of 'The Avengers' and 'Brave,' which we believe have tremendous potential to drive value for the Studio and the rest of the company,” Disney said.
For Rich Ross’s sake, they better hope so.

Graham King on 'Hugo's' box-office woes

24 Frames

Movies: Past, present and future

Graham King on 'Hugo's' box-office woes: 'It's been painful'

February 6, 2012 |  8:26 pm

Last weekend I hosted a panel at the Santa Barbara Film Festival that featured five producers whose films were Oscar best picture nominees. At one point I asked everyone how many shooting days they had to make the film. After everyone else answered, Graham King, the producer of “Hugo,” got a big laugh, saying “I think our shooting schedule was longer than everyone else’s put together. After 100 days, what are you going to do — call an ambulance?”
When it comes to King’s investment in “Hugo,” it’s probably time for a healthy dose of gallows humor. The Martin Scorsese-directed 3-D film is a cinematic marvel, taking us on an amazing journey through 1930s Paris back to the formative days of moviemaking. The critics swooned over the film’s technical wizardry. The academy gave it 11 Oscar nominations, the most of any film this year. If I had an Oscar ballot, it would get my vote for best picture.

But the film has been a financial meltdown for King, a bigger-than-life movie impresario who has either produced or helped finance an impressive array of prestigious movie star-propelled films, including “Ali,” “Gangs of New York,” “The Aviator,” “The Departed,” “The Tourist” and “Hugo.” King sold off some foreign territories with “Hugo” but is otherwise on the hook for the rest of the film’s losses.
Originally budgeted at roughly $100 million, the movie spiraled out of control during production. King puts the film’s cost at $156 million, thanks to some tax rebates and additional British financing, but others say the film’s budget ended up at $170 million. So far “Hugo” has only taken in about $62 million domestically and last weekend it wasn’t on the box-office top 10 list.
It’s been a sobering experience for King, an ebullient man who is usually the life of the party. On an artistic level, King has much to celebrate, having accomplished the rare feat of producing best picture and animated feature (“Rango”) nominees in the same year. Yet when we had lunch last week, King had the slightly shellshocked air of a stunt pilot who’d barely survived a crash landing in a cornfield.
“I’ve completely changed my way of thinking about making movies, maybe from hitting my head too hard a couple of times,” he told me. “Now when I read a script, I think — what does the audience want to see? In the past, I was only thinking about what I wanted to make. But I’m changing my ways. I’m too old, too tired. I don’t want to live on the edge anymore.”
Of course, living on the edge is what makes King, 50, such a fascinating showbiz character. Born in London, he was a big Chelsea soccer fan whose dad would take him in the middle of the night to a local theater to watch the great Ali-Frazier fights. When he was 18 he moved to Los Angeles to attend college, but instead took a job as a temp at 20th Century Fox, where he ended up as an executive doing international TV deals. By 2001 he’d been nicknamed “The Suicide King” for investing in films that everyone figured were long-shot gambles, like “Traffic” and “Gangs of New York.”
The bet King was really making was on his ability to build relationships with star talent. King has made four films with Scorsese. He’s made two films with Angelina Jolie, including her recent directorial debut, “In the Land of Blood and Honey.” He also has a production company with Johnny Depp, who costarred in “The Tourist,” was the lead voice actor in “Rango” and is starring in the upcoming Tim Burton film “Dark Shadows,” which King also produced. King has a Brad Pitt film, “World War Z,” due out this fall and is prepping a second film with Ben Affleck, who directed the King-produced film “The Town.”
In many ways, King is a throwback to men like Sam Spiegel and Joseph E. Levine, mid-20th century producer titans who made Oscar-drenched films like “On the Waterfront,” “Lawrence of Arabia,” “The Lion in Winter” and “The Graduate.” Like King, they were men of epic ambition who often courted disaster when their films didn’t hit pay dirt. King stands out even more today, especially since today’s studios have grown wary of making $100-million films with costly A-list talent, preferring to cultivate star-free superhero franchises.
When you don’t have studio backing, having talent on your side is your best insurance policy, since the top stars are magnets for the hottest scripts in town. King believes that his willingness to back his stars’ passion projects will end up giving him access to more commercial projects. Depp’s “Rum Diary,” which King produced, was a flop, but their next film together, “Dark Shadows,” has the look of a big moneymaker. King is also a regular patron of screenwriter John Logan, who wrote “Hugo” and “Rango” and is now writing a film adaptation of the “Jersey Boys” musical, which King is producing.
Still, “Hugo” is a thorn in his side.
“There’s no finger pointing — I’m the producer and I take the responsibility,” he said glumly. “Budget wise, there just wasn’t enough prep time and no one really realized how complicated doing a 3-D film was going to be. I went through three line producers because no one knew exactly what was going on. Do I still think it’s a masterpiece that will be talked about in 20 years? Yes. But once the schedule started getting out of whack, things just spiraled and spiraled and that’s when the avalanche began.”
He laughs uneasily. “Let’s just say that it hasn’t been an easy few months for me — there’s been a lot of Ambien involved.”
King isn’t taking the hit alone. His partner is Tim Headington, a Texas oilman who, according to Forbes, is worth $1.5 billion. Not long after they first met, King told Headington, a longtime film buff, that he should invest in a company, not individual films. Headington took the advice and became King’s partner. “It’s a handshake deal,” says King. “It’s been painful lately but he’s seen the change in my thinking about making commercial movies.”
By the end of lunch, King almost began to sound like his old self, touting his latest projects, which include a big-screen biopic of Queen singer Freddie Mercury. “Being a good producer is all about self-confidence,” he said. “When I’m on the set, I try to make sure that everyone has a real faith, not just in the movie, but in themselves. It’s a lot like being a good baseball manager or a soccer coach. Sometimes the only thing that helps you handle adversity is believing in yourself.”

Hollywood's global strategy

24 Frames

Movies: Past, present and future

Hollywood's global strategy: Made in America, but not for Americans

January 10, 2012 | 12:09 pm

Nearly every year-end story about the film business was punctuated with the same depressing statistic — U.S. attendance at the movies had fallen to its lowest level in 16 years. Maybe that's because Hollywood, which for so long served as an icon for all things American, isn't making most of its movies with Americans first in mind anymore.
Whenever I talk to top studio executives these days they are invariably jet-lagged, having just returned from a trip to some far-flung country where they've either been setting up a new distribution entity, visiting a film set or negotiating a co-production deal. Moviegoing may be lagging in the U.S., but it's enjoying explosive growth in markets such as Russia, China, Brazil and South Korea. Just look at the numbers: Three of the four top-grossing films of 2011 — “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows — Part 2,” “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides” and “Kung Fu Panda 2” — did more than 70% of their business overseas.

This focus on foreign markets is clearly changing the way studios assemble their feature film slates. Nowhere is this more evident than at Paramount Pictures, Hollywood's market-share leader in 2011 with 19.2% of the overall business. In 2007, when the studio also had the largest share of the market, Paramount did roughly the same amount of business in the U.S. as it did overseas — $1.5 billion domestic versus $1.6 billion international. In 2011, the studio's films grossed $1.9 billion in the U.S. But they made a whopping $3.2 billion overseas.
Under Brad Grey's leadership, Paramount is now focused on making two radically different kinds of films — behemoths that appeal to audiences everywhere and low-budget ones that appeal to a specific niche of American moviegoers. Nine of the 10 movies the studio bankrolled in 2011 cost at least $125 million — or $25 million or less. The studio has a hit this week with “The Devil Inside,” a horror film released through Paramount's micro-budget Insurge label. Made for $1 million and marketed without any prime-time TV advertising, it was the weekend's No. 1 release, taking in $33.7 million.
“There's been a definite recalibration of the movie business,” Grey says. “With that in mind, our strategy has been to focus on big franchises or films that use the power of our Viacom-branded networks, which can bring in revenues from a variety of aftermarkets for years to come. And at the same time, we're making small movies that allow us to use innovative social media and viral marketing techniques to go after specific targeted audiences.”
The expensive films, “Mission: Impossible — Ghost Protocol,” “Transformers: Dark of the Moon” and “The Adventures of Tintin,” all were aimed at international audiences. In fact, the Steven Spielberg-directed “Tintin,” a co-production with Sony Pictures, was so globally oriented — the film is already on track to make nearly $300 million overseas — that it would've been a hit if it had never been released in the U.S. (The film opened in Europe two months before debuting stateside.) With “Ghost Protocol,” the movie's story line is constructed in such a way that its action unfolds in a string of international locations, notably Russia, India and the United Arab Emirates (where the studio held the film's premiere, in Dubai).
Paramount's other 2011 titles were lower-budget films that had little chance of playing well overseas: “Young Adult” was aimed at urban hipsters, “Justin Bieber: Never Say Never” was targeted at preteen girls, and “Paranormal Activity 3,” like “Devil Inside,” was for horror fans.
Paramount's one midrange film was the J.J. Abrams-directed “Super 8,” which cost $50 million. In years past, a splashy special-effects movie by one of the studio's leading filmmakers would've carried a far higher price tag. But realizing that the film's distinctly American subject matter (and lack of name talent) would have far less international appeal, the studio persuaded Abrams to make the film in West Virginia, where there were generous tax credits. The studio says Abrams also took no up-front fee for the picture.
This is no doubt great news for Paramount's bottom line, as well as for other media conglomerates that are moving in a similar globally oriented direction. But what will happen to the kind of movies we've traditionally viewed as distinctly American — “Mystic River,” “Milk,” “The Descendants” — movies that explore, define or simply poke fun at our American character?
We still see American-oriented dramas at Oscar time, since the lure of a best picture statuette can still hypnotize the most pragmatic studio executive into ignoring their bottom-line instincts. But this year's leading best picture contender, “The Artist,” is an international production, written, directed and produced by French film talent. If American filmmakers want to play the Oscar game, with rare exceptions they'll either be financed by wealthy outsiders — Kathryn Bigelow's upcoming film about the hunt for Osama bin Laden is backed by Megan Ellison, daughter of Oracle Chief Executive Larry Ellison — or they'll be produced for peanuts, as with Alexander Payne's next film, “Nebraska,” a black-and-white road picture that Paramount is spending $10 million to make.
In the past, our great American novels would provide regular fodder for the studio machinery. But their subjects are now too specifically American, not to mention too dramatically complicated, for studios to launch into the global jet stream. Three of the best recent novels — “The Corrections,” “A Visit From the Goon Squad” and “The Art of Fielding” — are in various stages of development, not at a film studio but at HBO.
You could argue that being associated with distinctly American subject matter can actually slow a film's acceptance across the globe. Surely it's not a coincidence that of the 15 top-grossing films in 2011, the movie that did the lowest percentage of overseas business was “Captain America: The First Avenger,” even though it was set largely overseas, as were “Harry Potter,” “Rio,” “Cars 2,” “Pirates,” “The Hangover Part II,” and “Fast Five.”
What the U.S. still brings to the table is the spunk and brainpower of American entrepreneurialism. Hollywood has a creative ecosystem that is virtually impossible to duplicate anywhere else. China, for example, has a domestic market easily big enough to make its own films. But according to Sony co-chairman Michael Lynton, the country still lacks key creative resources — starting with a thriving community of screenwriters — that are essential ingredients in making films.
“Our movies may no longer espouse American values, but they carry a ‘Made in America' stamp that guarantees a commercial and technical quality level that's unmatched anywhere else,” Lynton says. “When you're overseas, you often find yourself negotiating deals with someone's sister or brother-in-law who may or may not have any actual film experience. In the U.S., we have an entire system of institutions, from film schools to union guilds to talent agencies, designed to provide quality entertainment.”
So while something is lost, something else is gained. Our commercial movies may have less to say about specific American values, but they are still magnets for great talent, making their mark around the globe through their vibrant style and technical prowess. Filmmakers come from all different cultures: Peter Jackson, Ang Lee, Guillermo del Toro, Chris Nolan, Timur Bekmambetov, Neill Blomkamp. But all have found ways to make very American movies.
RELATED:
 Why so many Hollywood relationship movies are box-office duds
Roger Corman: Hollywood's original low-budget superhero
— Patrick Goldstein

Patrick Goldstein on Hollywood Relationships

24 Frames

Movies: Past, present and future

Why so many Hollywood relationship movies are box-office duds

December 28, 2011 |  2:32 pm

In Hollywood, everyone is in the relationship business. Studios woo auteurs. Directors schmooze stars. Writers cozy up to producers. Agents and managers zealously court the bankable filmmakers and actors who can get movies off the ground.

The relationships pay off in a million different ways. Will Smith, who just finished shooting “Men in Black 3,” has now made eight of his last 10 live-action movies at Sony, thanks largely to a close relationship with studio co-chairman Amy Pascal. Warner Bros. is skin-tight with director Christopher Nolan. 20th Century Fox is James Cameron’s home court. Ditto for Paramount with J.J. Abrams and Universal with Judd Apatow.



But if you look at the recent crop of movies that have crashed and burned at the multiplex, something striking stands out: Many of the duds would never have passed the studios’ standard box-office smell test. They were made because they were Relationship Movies.

Studios these days are notoriously averse to risk. So why would Sony make a $30-million film based on the preposterous idea that the Earl of Oxford was the secret author of Shakespeare’s most popular plays? Why would 20th Century Fox spend $40 million bankrolling “The Big Year,” a comedy about bird enthusiasts? Why would Warner Bros. spend $35 million making “J. Edgar,” a biopic about the long-dead head of the FBI?

And speaking of puzzlements, why would indie producer Graham King shell out a reported $50 million to make “The Rum Diary,” a story about an alcohol-imbibing journalist based on an obscure novel by Hunter S. Thompson?

None of the films had much luck with moviegoers. Despite the presence of Steve Martin, Jack Black and Owen Wilson, “The Big Year” made a paltry $7.1 million in the United States. The Shakespeare story “Anonymous” did even worse, barely eking out $4.3 million. Even though “Rum Diary” had Johnny Depp in the lead role, it has only made $13.1 million. Even with mega-watt star Leonardo DiCaprio in the lead, “J. Edgar” has so far only made about $36 million. Its Oscar best picture prospects are now rated as somewhere between slim and none.

So why did everyone spend so much money on such commercially questionable subject matter? That’s where relationships come in. No one at Sony had a burning desire to make a thriller about who wrote “Romeo and Juliet.” But the director of “Anonymous,” Roland Emmerich, has filled Sony’s coffers to the brim with box-office loot from such hits as “2012,” “Godzilla” and “The Patriot.”

After all, Sony is built on relationships. The studio has made a string of immensely profitably Adam Sandler comedies. It has also made two consecutive films with the iconic David Fincher (“The Social Network” and “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo”). To hear Pascal tell it, to attract gifted stars and filmmakers, you have to back their vision, whether it’s clear or cloudy.

“You have to believe in your talent,” she said. “I’m certainly not going to make a film that I don’t like. But when you have a relationship, something special comes out of that trust that you’ve built up over years of working together.”

Pascal hedged her bets financially with “Anonymous,” which was co-financed by Relativity Media. But she says she has no regrets. “I believed in what Roland wanted to do. He had something fresh and entertaining to say, which is all you can ask for from a filmmaker.”

In other words, Emmerich had enough money in the Sony bank to get the benefit of the doubt. You could say the same thing for David Frankel, the director of “The Big Year.” He ended up making a film that was virtually impossible to market, despite its star talent — bird watching being about as exciting to watch as, well, curling. But even though Fox is not known for developing cozy talent relationships, Frankel was a rare exception, having earned tons of money with his previous two films, “Marley & Me” and “The Devil Wears Prada,” both made for Fox.

If Fox would indulge Frankel, imagine what Warners is willing to do for Clint Eastwood. The much-decorated “J. Edgar” director has been based at Warners so long that when he signed his first deal there Hank Aaron was still knocking home runs out of the park. Warners had doubted Eastwood once before, a mistake it wasn’t eager to make again. Eastwood’s “Million Dollar Baby” took home four Oscars in 2005, including best picture and best director, but only after Warners initially passed on the project, forcing Eastwood to get co-financing from Lakeshore Entertainment.

So despite any concerns the studio may have had about the marketability of a period film about an American bureaucrat, once Eastwood attracted an A-list leading man, the studio felt obligated to back him.

The relationship business is especially complicated for Graham King, whose GK Films produced “Rum Diary.” King doesn’t have the luxury of spreading his bets across a 15- or 20-film studio slate. Even though he mitigates his risk by selling films’ overseas rights before beginning production, if a movie doesn’t perform, he’s in trouble. He lives and dies by his relationships, the closest ones being with Depp, Martin Scorsese (whose current film, “Hugo,” was also produced by King) and Angelina Jolie, whose Bosnian war drama, “In the Land of Blood and Honey,” was also bankrolled by King.

If studios are leery of making Hunter S. Thompson movies, you can imagine how wary they are of a Jolie-directed Balkans film. But Jolie and Depp made King a king’s ransom costarring in his 2010 movie “The Tourist.” (Despite middling reviews, it took in $67 million in the U.S. and another $210 million overseas.)

Depp is slated to star next in “Dark Shadows,” also being produced by King. As for Scorsese, even though King may well end up losing money on “Hugo,” which reportedly cost close to $170 million, the director has a long history with the producer, having made two Oscar-caliber projects with him, “The Aviator” and “The Departed,” which went on to win best picture.

These are hardly the only relationships in town. Fox Searchlight has made Danny Boyle’s last six movies, including the Oscar-winning “Slumdog Millionaire.” Sony Pictures Classics has a long history of releasing Pedro Almodovar films. Harvey Weinstein has been in the Quentin Tarantino business for decades.

It’s hard to imagine where Hollywood would be if no one was willing to take a gamble on what are often complicated creative partnerships. And hey — sometimes a crazy risk can work. Just ask the folks at Warners, who made out like bandits with Nolan’s “Inception,” even though greenlighting the film was, in part, a show of support designed to ensure that the director would remain at the helm of the “Batman” franchise.

All in all, I’m guessing King wishes that instead of making “Rum Diary” he could’ve just sent Depp a fabulous fruit basket. But in Hollywood, the price of loyalty is steep. “Relationships are complicated,” Pascal said. “But you can’t run a company simply by the numbers. So if you’re going to bet on someone, you bet on someone you want to be in business with for a long time.” RELATED:
Why is Harvey Weinstein the ultimate Oscar campaigner?
Bert Schneider: A long strange trip for 'Easy Rider' mastermind
--Patrick Goldstein