Understanding the film business / Awards

[jo]

Interesting aspects/details of the longterm extension of AMPAS contract with ABC to host the OSCARS.

variety.com/2016/tv/news/abc-oscars-deal-status-quo-1201849487/


Excerpts --

In terms of structure, the agreement is very much an extension — not a new deal. The Academy will continue to have final say on producers, hosts and other production decisions, with ABC maintaining some input but ultimately deferring to the Academy. There is no agreement in place to install the network’s late-night star Jimmy Kimmel as Oscars host, despite his longstanding desire to fill the role.

In fact, no conversations have yet been had with any potential hosts for the 2017 awards, with the focus now on lining up producers. David Hill, who produced this year with Reginald Hudlin, has expressed interest in returning. ABC is high on Don Mischer, who produced in 2011 and 2012 and is producing the Emmys this year for the Alphabet. Craig Zadan and Neil Meron, who produced the show from 2013 to 2015, are said to be unlikely to return.

Though ABC executives have long grumbled at wanting more say in how the Oscars are produced, they are not without influence. The network put its foot down two years ago when the Academy pushed to have Kimmel’s rival Jimmy Fallon of NBC’s “The Tonight Show” host. The network and the Academy were in lockstep on past attempts to get Fallon pal Justin Timberlake to host, only to be rebuffed by the singer-actor...

[jo]

With the release of LA LA LAND at Telluride, Tom Hanks shared some very interesting comments on how this kind of movie is fresh hope to the attitude towards movies ( and the kind audiences would like to see ) --

Interesting what Tom Hanks said about LaLaLand (not about the actual film itself but the kind of film it is and what it means to the future of filmmaking) --



deadline.com/2016/09/telluride-film-festival-tom-hanks-praises-la-la-land-sully-q-a-1201813204/

The two-time Oscar winner had been in the first Telluride audience yesterday afternoon to see the new Lionsgate/Summit musical from Damien Chazelle. After Eastwood spoke during the Sully event this morning about wanting to do original kinds of movies, Hanks interjected his praise for La La, another Telluride film fighting for attention.


Said Hanks, “I like to think we approach movies the same way we approach being members of the audience in that you just want to see something you have never seen before. It’s funny. Who saw La La Land yesterday?” Many answered in the affirmative by their applause.

“When you see something that is brand new, that you can’t imagine, and you think ‘well thank God this landed’, because I think a movie like La La Land would be anethema to studios. Number one, it is a musical and no one knows the songs.”



After joking that Warner Bros. brass would be thrilled with his plugging another movie, Hanks continued his praise for La La: “This is not a movie that falls into some sort of trend. I think it is going to be a test of the broader national audience, because it has none of the things that major studios want. Pre-Awareness is a big thing they want, which is why a lot of remakes are going on. (La La) is not a sequel, nobody knows who the characters are…But if the audience doesn’t go and embrace something as wonderful as this then we are all doomed.”

He continued: “We all understand the business aspects of it. It’s cruel and it’s backbreaking and take-no-prisoners. But there’s always that chance where the audience sees something that is brand new, that they never expected, and embraces it, and celebrates it. We might be in the luxurious position that we can say we don’t have to pay attention to the trends, but there are other people whose parking spaces with their names on them are paid to follow these trends. I don’t take anything away from them and there are some good movies that come out of that. But we all go to the cinema for the same thing, that is to be transported to someplace we have never been before.”


Eastwood then piped in saying he had not yet seen the picture to which Hanks was referring but wondered how many “turndowns” they got before someone financed it. The fact is that Chazelle couldn’t get La La Land made for years and finally wrote Whiplash, an easier concept to sell and a less risky investment, in order to get the kind of calling card he needed for his dream musical...

Winds of change?

Hope audiences embrace the movie musical genre once again and even more strongly ( especially when the material is not familiar) when THE GREATEST SHOWMAN ON EARTH is released on Christmas Day in 2017. It is likely FOX is also watching from the wings on what will happen to LA LA LAND at the box office


Jo

[jo]

Variable ticket pricing for movies ? In the theatre, it was/is called "dynamic pricing".

www.cinemablend.com/news/1586980/bigger-movies-might-start-costing-more-to-see-heres-why

Bigger Movies Might Start Costing More To See, Here's Why
By Dirk Libbey


Seeing movie theater ticket prices increase isn't surprising, it seems to happen bit by bit on a fairly consistent basis, however, now it looks like at least one theater chain is looking to increase ticket prices on only certain movies. The CFO of AMC Entertainment has begun to consider a variable pricing model that would see tentpole films become more expensive than the rest of the options at the cinema when they get released. This is following the company's acquisition of a European theater company that already does so.


They [Odeon & UCI] are further advanced in variable pricing, where tentpole movies are priced up on release. That's something we've talked about in the U.S. We expect to learn a lot with what they've done. We think it will position us to start having those conversations about pricing opportunities in the U.S.
So get ready for those big summer blockbusters to not only cost more than they do now, but to also be more expensive than anything else at the theater. AMC Entertainment CFO Craig Ramsey made the comments during the MKM Partners Entertainment, Leisure and Consumer Technology Conference and was reported by The Hollywood Reporter. It appears the theater chain is in the very early stages of investigating this option, so they didn't go into any real detail as to what the pricing what look like. However, since the purpose of a policy like this is to increase theater revenue, we would have to assume that whatever the "blockbuster new release" price would turn out to be, it will almost certainly be something higher than what standard ticket price is today.
While seeing prices go up for the movies we most want to see is not an exciting possibility, it won't be shocking to see something like this happen. Lots of industries have variable pricing based on demand. Try to book an airline ticket or make a hotel reservation for the next week and see how much those will cost compared to making the same reservation months earlier.


On the other hand, depending on how something like this shakes out, there could also be some benefits. If the variable pricing does see a movie ticket price drop to something significantly lower over time then maybe some movies will eventually be cheaper. Maybe there's a movie that you're just not sure about paying $10 for, but knowing that you'll be able to see it for $5 next month is much more reasonable. Or, perhaps there's a movie that you loved and you want to see it again, not having to pay as much the second time could also be very attractive.


No other theater chains mentioned trying similar structures but you can bet that if AMC does give it a try, and finds success, others will surely follow. Although, if AMC prices themselves out of the market so that theatergoers use other theater chains to avoid upcharges, maybe it won't work quite a well.
Would you pay more money to see that big summer movie? Let us know in the comments.

[jo]

Talking about hosting the Oscars --

A lot of detailed praise on why the Jackman hosting is the best in the last 10 years!


www.vulture.com/2016/12/awards-show-show-jimmy-kimmel-oscar-host.html

December 9, 2016
4:59 p.m.
The Awards Show Show: Analyzing Jimmy Kimmel As Oscars Host, Plus Arrival Director Denis Villeneuve
By Kyle Buchanan



This week on The Awards Show Show, Vulture's Kyle Buchanan and the Frame's John Horn discuss what makes for a good Oscars host. Which prior hosts should new pick Jimmy Kimmel learn from, and whom should he endeavor to be least like? (One of our picks is likely to surprise you.) Then, Arrival director Denis Villeneuve has finally come to town after shooting Blade Runner 2049 with Ryan Gosling and Harrison Ford. He'll drop some tantalizing teases about that movie, talk about Arrival's surprising post-Trump strength, and talk about the significant way the Oscars altered the course of his career.

An excerpt from the conversation about Jimmy Kimmel follows; listen to the episode below, and subscribe to The Awards Show Show on iTunes.



On the choice to hire Kimmel:

John Horn: I think it's a very safe pick. There's a little network synergy here that ABC can promote Jimmy Kimmel on a very widely watched show. I think he's funny — I don't think he is super funny — but I think will probably surround himself with clever writers. He probably cares about the movie business, so he'll have some good quips. But is anybody is going to say, "You know, we've got to watch the Oscars this year because Jimmy Kimmel is hosting?"

Kyle Buchanan: He's capable. I do think they probably were left with very little choice. The producers of the Oscars this year, Mike De Luca and Jennifer Todd, they came in so late, with two months left to go before the Oscars. Most of the people you'd want to have gone to are booked.

JH: It's important people recognize you don't just show up the night before the Oscars — this is a commitment that is about a month, two or three weeks of daylong rehearsals. If you've got an important movie, you've got an important TV show, you have to stop working on whatever that is. And you don't get paid for it; it's basically pro bono work. You're not going to make a big paycheck. It is a labor of love.

KB: Yeah, and a lot of the time you'll get raked over the coals if you do it poorly.





On the Oscars hosts who've gotten it right ... and who haven't:

JH: Chris Rock has done the Oscars a couple of times. The first time I thought he was very good. What I like in Chris Rock is that he is able to poke fun at Hollywood itself: In that ceremony he made fun of Jude Law, and Sean Penn (who has no sense of humor) made some kind of incredibly self-important speech about how Jude Law is one of our finest actors. I think Chris Rock has the right sense of irreverence. He is hosting a show and he's also hosting a comedy special and I think those two things work well together.

KB: You said that he pokes fun. I would say he makes fun, which is a very tricky thing. His ability to do that — boy, it was shocking at the time. He had a lot to talk about, a lot of points to make, a lot of targets to hit. It's definitely one of the most memorable ones. The ironic thing is the last time he hosted, there was no shortage of material — it was the year of #OscarsSoWhite — and he didn't really hit the mark. He was tamer and he didn't seem to have that fire. I wonder if that was because his first stint was so controversial, that he felt like it would behoove him to rein it in somewhat.


JH: Who is first on your list?

KB: I picked the one that I think is probably the best Oscars host of the last ten years: Hugh Jackman.

JH: Hugh Jackman is an unbelievably talented live performer. He has a presence and he has a warmth and I think you root for him as a performer. That's part of why that ceremony works so well.

KB: He is all of those things. His triple-threat nature, there's a whole lot of things that you can do with him. But more than that, and this is part of the reason why I was advocating for Dwayne Johnson to host the Oscars, is there's just something unexpected about him. Since Hugh is not a comedian by nature, everything he did in that award ceremony felt sweet and wonderful. You rooted for him. He had charm to spar and, crucially, he conveyed this Hollywood elegance. A lot of the time when you're trying to get an irreverent host — and I'm not advocating against an irreverent host by any means — a lot of the elegance and the glamour of the Oscars is sacrificed.


JH: You're probably not going to like my next pick because the earnestness isn't there, though the cynicism and skepticism certainly is: Jon Stewart. It's probably not exactly what you want in a host, because he is not glad-handing everybody. He's going to be a little skeptical of the whole idea of Hollywood congratulating itself. But I just like to see him, and I thought he did a pretty good job.

KB: The Daily Show was firing on all cylinders back then. He himself set this very high watermark that was going to be hard to match. If they'd announced him as the host this year, that would've gotten me so engaged. The bizarre intersections of politics and entertainment that we're going through with the election would have made him a very germane host.

JH: So who's on your list next?

KB: Ellen DeGeneres and her Oscars selfie. I think having that viral moment is going to be the thing that a lot of Oscars hosts aspire to. Certainly when you have somebody like Jimmy Kimmel who's hosting who realizes the late-night landscape has been forever changed by the pursuit of these viral sketches, that's going to be front of mind. What Ellen did very well is she married this scripted, prepared moment with spontaneity — all these people suddenly crowding the frame. I don't think that's something that everyone can do. I would be shocked if we didn't see a lot of tries to replicate that magic.

JH: I'm going to end with somebody who has done the Oscars a lot, who I think probably outlasted his welcome, and who I never really found very funny: Billy Crystal. I find him a bit mean-spirited.

KB: I love that you went after Billy Crystal for being mean-spirited. Of all the people! 

JH: Billy Crystal, if you spend a little time around him, he's not a nice guy. If I want to see Borscht Belt comedy, I'll go to the Borscht Belt. There's that kind of backslapping, I'm-with-you-guys thing, doing Paul Robeson on "Old Man River," Sammy Davis Jr. ... there's something very unsettling in what he's doing about race. I think he is not at all what you want in an Oscars host.

KB: The Billy Crystal era had its moments. When he tried to reprise that after Eddie Murphy fell out as host, it was a stop-gap procedure. He did what he could, but I think it double underlined the fact that moment has passed.






On what Kimmel needs to do to succeed:

JH: I think the real challenge for any Oscars host is, you don't get the credit for the win, you get the blame for the loss. Ultimately I think the Oscars are defined by the speeches. If people are game and they speak from their heart and they have interesting stories to tell when they win their Oscars, that is what makes a great ceremony.

KB: And I think that spontaneity extends to the host too. You have to have an ability to roll with the punches. Just the fact that the audience doesn't know necessarily what to expect from you counts for something. I feel like that's what really hindered Neil Patrick Harris when he hosted: He'd done this hosting thing so many times that there just wasn't any freshness to watching him do it. Whether he went along with it or what, it was still the same hacky, Billy Crystal jokes that they were feeding him. It didn't feel fresh in the slightest, and that's my worry with Kimmel. He's hosted so many things; are we going to feel that freshness from him?


JH: The thing that I think Kimmel has in his corner is that at the Oscars is that you are performing live in front of an audience of about a thousand people and you're also performing in front of a global audience of tens of millions of television viewers. You really have to be able to do both. I think the people who fail are playing more to the room then they are to the TV. Kimmel understands television, he understands what a global audience is, he understands that his jokes can't be too inside because they won't travel outside of the Dolby Theater. I think he gets the challenge.

KB: We shall see. I'm rooting for him. I hope it will be good, and I'm really curious to see what they do with the rest of the ceremony. When I talked to Jennifer Todd earlier this season, she said that Hugh Jackman ceremony was her favorite, too. I hope she learns the right lessons from it.

[jo]

and, crucially, he conveyed this Hollywood elegance

Exactly -- he was Hollywood! The Hollywood of the golden years... and even modern-day Hollywood ( " I am Wolveeeeerrrriiiiiiiine!!" )!

Plus of course Hugh is the best-looking host ever, so the glamour of Hollywood was embodied in him! He looked like the best of the Red Carpet...and the Big Screen !


Jo

[mamaleh]

Hmmm, that adulation makes me think that if HJ were not currently busy, the Oscars producers might well have asked him to reprise his stellar hosting duties. I do fully agree with them as to why he was the best host of recent years. Maybe next year...?

Ellen

[jo]

LOL -- that would be something, especially if his LOGAN and GREATEST SHOWMAN could be contenders


But you struck at the right word -- it is indeed "adulation"!


I have another theory why it worked so well with the Hugh Jackman hosting. It is true that he was actually performing with a well-written script ( which won an EMMY) -- but what made the entire performance so striking and so enjoyable was that Hugh was acting it all out, as a very competent and versatile actor can! He had the natural triple-threat talent but he also knew how to act it out! The other hosts were simply cracking jokes and trying to be cute or being sophisticated ( by saying some mean jokes) -- not Hugh -- he followed his script so well ( which was a comedic gem) which really reflected on the Best Picture contenders ( and some -- like The Dark Knight). So, one gets a real feel on what the movies offered that year! It made the audience feel like they are part of the party because they saw those movies.

He was Hollywood...and Hollywood was best represented by him!



Jo

[jo]

What motivates film-makers when they create their cinematic visions ?

James Mangold was asked to give introductory remarks to a re-issue of the great western classic SHANE.

It is very interesting read -- and one can probably glean how the film-making lessons from SHANE has guided Jim Mangold in his approach to LOGAN, THE WOLVERINE, and KATE AND LEOPOLD and his other well-lauded films !

He cites versatility as a key lesson and mourns the fact that in modern filmmaking, it seems some are now dedicated to some specialist genre. He also cites attention to details - that reminds me of the level of detail that Leopold observes while testing out the modern world inside Kate's apartment (including making a mascarpone and strawberry toast ).

Hope LOGAN benefits from his wide-ranging film-making motivations, skills, and experience !


EDIT: The online link taken from the TWITTER link seems to have been deleted...or vanished from the Twitter links.


Jo

[jo]

How has the concept of "star power" changed?


From Forbes.com, a thoughtful analysis why certain actors remain at the top of their game, even if they are not identified with star-making franchises --

www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2017/01/06/the-important-reason-denzel-washington-and-leonardo-dicaprio-are-still-movie-stars/#14d0fb3b77c1

Jan 6, 2017 @ 10:05 AM 413 views

The Important Reason Denzel Washington And Leonardo DiCaprio Are Still Movie Stars


Scott Mendelson ,   Contributor
I cover the film industry.



With over $37 million domestic in its first 12 days of wide release, Denzel Washington's Fences is already something of a success story. Paramount/Viacom Inc.’s $24m adaptation of the beloved August Wilson play, which co-stars Oscar frontrunner Viola Davis, has already out-grossed the likes of MGM and Paramount’s Ben-Hur and may yet pass whatever domestic total 20th Century Fox’s Assassin’s Creed achieves by the time it wraps up.
I use those two examples because they somewhat represented the “conventional wisdom” about what makes money in Hollywood (white male heroic journey blockbusters based on an IP), but I digress. In a year when old school movie stardom was tested, with mixed results, Denzel Washington is proving yet again that he is a rare breed of “face in the trailer” movie star. He is one of the last of his kind.

In fact, I would put him alongside Leonardo DiCaprio as one of the last old guard movie stars left outside the realm of cheap-ish comedy vehicles.

If we argue brands and IPs have killed or at least mortally wounded the would-be movie star, then we must also look at just why DiCaprio and Washington can still pull in big bucks for the kinds of projects that might not scream “big bucks.” Both actors have mostly forsaken the lure of the franchise or the IP and kept up a career where they were the main attraction.

One of the core issues with the would-be newfangled generation of movie stars is that many of them came to prominence within the confines of a specific franchise or by playing a particular beloved existing character. Chris Pine was introduced to most of us as Captain James T. Kirk, Chris Hemsworth as Thor, Jennifer Lawrence as Mystique or Katniss Everdeen and so forth.

I loved Winter’s Bone too, but that Best Picture nominee earned $6.5 million in domestic release. As a byproduct of Hollywood’s (increased) emphasis franchise/tentpole/IP-driven fare, the process has been somewhat skewed. It wasn’t “Hey, it’s Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man,” but rather “Hey, it’s that guy you only know as Captain Kirk now playing Jack Ryan now playing some guy in a Coast Guard adventure!”


Since audiences never got the chance to get an impression of these would-be new movie stars before their franchise debut, they had no real star personas outside of the franchise fare. Lawrence is an exception. She has a known persona outside of her flagship role and is lucky enough to have become David O. Russell’s favorite muse as The Hunger Games took off.



Hollywood has spent the last 15 years trying to recreate Hugh Jackman. He was a total unknown before X-Men. Yet they forgot the second part of that equation. Over the last decade, Hollywood stopped making the mid-level, genre-specific star vehicles to which a new star could cash in on their newfound fame. They stopped making Swordfish or While You Were Sleeping.


Now to be fair, it’s not like all those non-franchise Tom Hardy vehicles (Citizen 44) or Chris Hemsworth adventures (In the Heart of the Sea) hit pay dirt over the last few years. But again, when you offer the “package deal” of Chris Hemsworth as Thor, merely offering Chris Hemsworth as “a hunky computer hacker guy” is something of a step-down or lesser value.

In a less IP-driven world, Blackhat would be the top-tier star vehicle because films like Batman or The Flintstones weren’t terribly common in a given year. We treat CBS Films’ acclaimed and leggy Hell or High Water as a noteworthy star vehicle hit even as it made about as much ($27 million) total as Star Trek Into Darkness did on its first Saturday.

While some 80’s/90’s movie stars are still in multiplexes, there is a devaluing of their non-branded content. Harrison Ford is still worth “all the money” as Indiana Jones (or Han Solo) but not as “reluctant action man.” Johnny Depp is (hopefully) worth his big bucks as Jack Sparrow but not in anything else. Even Tom Cruise, still relatively flop-less since 1985, is mostly a blockbuster machine in the Mission: Impossible series.

Will Smith scored one of his biggest hits playing Deadshot in Suicide Squad but scored one of his biggest flops with the original Collateral Beauty (both for Warner Bros./Time Warner Inc.). Tom Hanks scored huge in his wheelhouse of non-fictional stories of heroism/courage (Warner's Sully) but struck out in an unrequested sequel (Sony's Inferno) and a pure star vehicle (Roadside Attraction's A Hologram for the King).

At this point, most of the old school stars are defined in the eyes of younger generations by their famous franchise characters, so that's the only value they bring to the screen in terms of drawing power. We'll see if Ben Affleck, who scored last year in Batman v Superman and The Accountant, can buck this trend.

So where do Denzel Washington and Leonardo DiCaprio fit into this?  Well, both have built a long and stable career out of fashioning pure star vehicles sans much in the way of brand or IP awareness.

Yes, Washington has starred in plenty of remakes (Man on Fire, The Manchurian Candidate) and he may have his first sequel next year with Sony's The Equalizer 2. But Washington’s successes are mostly based on the entertainment value/artistic worth of their top billed star. Films like Training Day, Remember the Titans and Safe House, as well as somewhat IP-driven entertainments like The Magnificent Seven and The Equalizer, were rooted precisely in the explicit drawing power of their top billed star.

It didn’t matter who Denzel Washington was playing, or if a given film was a remake, adaptation, or outright original. It only mattered it was a Denzel Washington star vehicle. He gets big bucks for movies that rarely break $200 million worldwide because he makes movies that succeed primarily because of him.

Leonardo DiCaprio has a reputation for large scale, adult-skewing prestige pictures that qualify as events partially because he is the featured star. Films like Shutter Island, Inception and The Revenant were outright events partially because they starred DiCaprio. Who else gets Shutter Island to $294 million or The Revenant to $533m worldwide?

Partially by working with the likes of Scorsese, Spielberg, Tarantino and Nolan in their prime, he gets adults out to the movies in massive numbers for (mostly) non-branded content that otherwise would struggle even to get made. He has never made a sequel and, with the arguable exception of The Great Gatsby, he has focused almost exclusively on varied genre offerings where he is one of the main attractions, if not the outright main attraction.

Throughout their careers, especially over the last 15 years, who Washington and DiCaprio play in said film has mattered significantly less than that Washington or DiCaprio starred in said movie. They have never really gone the IP-driven franchise route, and they have never played characters who were more of a brand than the actors themselves.

Even in an adaptation like The Equalizer, the sale is “Denzel Washington as Righteous Avenger Man.” Even in The Wolf of Wall Street, the core appeal is watching DiCaprio play in Scorsese’s cocaine-fueled fantasy. They have kept their star power as valuable as it was in a less “star+brand” era because they remained the main event.
They don’t play iconic superheroes or pop culture icons, so they have remained icons themselves. As movie stardom has become less vital due to a reliance on branded content and IP-driven franchises, Denzel Washington and Leonardo DiCaprio have kept themselves above the fray precisely by avoiding the kind of franchise fare that would turn them into glorified added value elements.

If many of the stars of today struggle because they are more defined by the pop culture characters they play, then DiCaprio and Washington buck the trend by ensuring that they remain the main attraction.

[jo]

Re the above Forbes.com article --

Hollywood has spent the last 15 years trying to recreate Hugh Jackman. He was a total unknown before X-Men. Yet they forgot the second part of that equation. Over the last decade, Hollywood stopped making the mid-level, genre-specific star vehicles to which a new star could cash in on their newfound fame. They stopped making Swordfish or While You Were Sleeping.

Other than the opportunity afforded Hugh Jackman to appear in movies like Kate & Leopold and Swordfish, apart from his likely unexpected fame as Wolverine, the author may have missed the point that Hugh has talent in spades! His training has prepared him for diverse roles in movies and on stage! And that he has delivered! In movies like Les Miserables, The Prestige, The Fountain, Prisoners, etc., and in several musical theatre and dramatic productions on Broadway. ! I wonder how many of the new wonders have proven their worth in vehicles other than their star-making franchises?! Not just in movies but in the theatre as well!

BoxOffice.com, which makes predictions of box office results, has called Hugh Jackman as " arguably the most iconic superhero actor of this generation" -- in recognition that Hugh himself has led the way and given gravitas to the phenomenon of the box office superhero!


But maybe it is the desire to prove himself further that has been one important consideration in Hugh's decision to leave the Wolverine role?


Jo

[jo]

It seems new developments indicate that the restrictive China market for overseas movies will be more liberal now. The former yearly quota was 34 (with certain exceptions given, with rather unexplainable reasons -- such as 3D movies are not counted in the quota) may climb to almost double that number on a yearly basis. It is also being predicted that China may allow an increase in the share of revenues by the foreign films to as high as 40% ( from 25%), compared to 55% in the USA.

With the increase in the yearly quota, will THE GREATEST SHOWMAN be given a slot either for late 2017 or very early 2018? Hopefully, any success of LOGAN, which has now been approved for a China release despite its R-rating, can help improve the chances of SHOWMAN.

chinafilminsider.com/signs-china-suggest-good-deal-hollywood-imports/?utm_source=China+Film+Insider+Newsletter+Update&utm_campaign=9ef9112136-Daily_Newsletter_August_228_22_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9a066b9dc2-9ef9112136-226845293

[jo]

FOX Chairman & CEO Stacey Snider talks about the changing economics, creative direction, and distribution trends of the film business and how they are impacting on the future of movies --


variety.com/2017/film/news/foxs-stacey-snider-mulls-new-approach-to-cash-break-even-deals-1202011550/

Fox’s Stacey Snider Mulls Cash Break-Even Dealmaking

Andrew Wallenstein
Co-Editor-in-Chief
@awallenstein


Lauren/Variety/REX/Shutterstock
March 18, 2017 | 01:53PM PT


Twentieth Century Fox Film chairman Stacey Snider sees changing economics for studios as the biggest blockbusters get even bigger.

In a Q&A with entertainment-industry attorney Ken Ziffren on Saturday at UCLA Law School, she sized up how cash break-even deals have been impacted by the widening gulf between top tentpoles and the rest of the pack on an average weekend at the office.


“What we’re discovering is the highs are even higher,” said Snider at the school’s 41st annual Entertainment Symposium. “So sometimes the cash break-even deals are yielding disproportionate profit participations. So what we’re looking at now is whether or not there are circumstances where you can just rationalize it. It’s not about taking away from the creative talent.”


“Yes it is,” Ziffren interjected.

Snider explained further that while the studio values the talent as much as ever, the increasingly exorbitant costs of producing and marketing tentpole films worldwide to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars gets all the more difficult in a “feast or famine marketplace” which top performing titles tend to leave lagging competitors far away in the dust during a typical weekend frame.


“It is an enormous undertaking, and it inures to the benefit of our participants to enable that operation to continue,” he said.

In a cash break-even deal, talent starts collecting their gross points only after the studio recoups its costs and a distribution fee covers the cost of overhead. Snider said that the Fox studio shifted its approach from first-dollar gross several years ago, before she was there.


While Fox has enjoyed its own success on the blockbuster franchise front like “Logan” in a theatrical marketplace where smaller movies have increasing trouble commanding their share of box office, she signaled that those titles shouldn’t be written off just yet.


“The success of Amazon Studios is a perfect example of how there is an opportunity it seems because of the new platforms, as long as you’re modeling your cost structure appropriate to that opportunity,” she said. “It does seem the major studios have made a bet for the bigger pictures but I do feel there’s an opportunity for variety.”


Fueling some of the challenges films are facing is an international marketplace where pay-TV output deals may not be as lucrative in the future, Snider explained. “Around the world, many of the windows are coming up and it’s a real challenge,” she said. “There’s more local production around the world, the TV shows we used to package with the films to create output deals are less vital to our international partners than they were before. And we’re just going to have to find ways to make deals to bridge the financial gap.”

She said the studios will have to create their own opportunities as well to make up the projected shortfall. “The studios will need to find their own platforms to compensate for the absence of clients to sell films to and build our own direct consumer opportunities,” she said, making clear that she was not referring to any such specific Fox-related move.

No offense meant -- but key to why tentpoles are dictating how the movie business is going is due to the increasing "infantilization" of Hollywood! The taste of moviegoers, judging from box office reception of movies, is generally biased now in favor of what heretofore were basically reserved to the very young demos! Animated movies, comicbook movies, fantasy movies, mindless comedies, and all-action thrillers/adventures all of which are characterized by heavy spectacle -- but where have the dramas, the inspiring movies, the insightful human stories, etc that we used to enjoy gone??

And this is a worldwide trend!

It is not the studios's fault -- they are simply following the dictates of the marketplace. In a sense, it is only the AMPAS through its Oscars awards which have kept its recognition still based on real creative talent and portrayals! Spectacle may occasionally win their votes but there is still room for human interest stories and for stories that make us think!

Or are they also partly to blame? If they give the movie-going audience more artistic and more grounded story-telling, they will respond with positive appreciation. It may not top the charts, but it is a good start to going back to the original creative visions in film-making!

LOGAN was particularly praised because it dealt with mature themes and was exceptionally well-made ( look at all the post-mortem incisive articles on why it was critically praised) with average ratings of 92% on Rotten Tomatoes, yet it will likely yield box office results that would only be half of what the juggernaut Beauty and the Beast will likely make. Yet, Beauty and the Beast could not even get a higher-level CERTIFIED FRESH rating at Rotten Tomatoes because its current rating sits at only 71%. Of course, probably part of the revenue dichotomy is the R-rating for LOGAN and a friendlier PG rating for BEAUTY. But did that make the difference in how the critics perceived the worth of each movie as a creative endeavor??

Blockbusters or tentpoles of the abovementioned genres will continue to dominate in a big way for the rest of 2017!

The distribution platform issue is not a particularly negative one to me, as technology is now allowing the product/creative content to reach consumers in the most efficient and convenient way. The studios will have to think outside the box now as old rich revenue sources ( such as DVDs and pay TV tie-ups) are waning.

I hope someone will eventually write an incisive article on how these trends have affected how creative talent and actors are now facing their career future within a framework of the trends affecting studio decision-making! We will never know how many superhero actors may really have dramatic caliber worthy of praise, if they never have the opportunity to show off their real abilities! We will never know how much more creative directors and other filmmakers can be, if they need to do tentpoles to pay for the bills!

On another note -- was it a brave decision on Hugh Jackman's part to leave his iconic role in the most lucrative franchise of FOX Studios... to chart another career course in film? Maybe his artistic muse is now following the iconic lines from a poem of Robert Frost --



I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.



Or is it from another famous Frost poem that he drew inspiration --



The woods are lovely, dark and deep,   
But I have promises to keep,   
And miles to go before I sleep,   
And miles to go before I sleep.






Jo

[jo]

There seems to be a more optimistic view by Stacey Sneider for the same symposium, as reported by Deadline.com --

Fox Boss Stacey Snider Says Studios Need To Create “More Choices & Options”

by Dominic Patten
March 18, 2017 1:13pm



“Eventually I would imagine, I’m speaking as an observer, the studios will need to find their own platforms and create our own direct-to-consumer opportunities,” said 2oth Century Fox film boss Stacey Snider today at a UCLA confab about where the movie industry is headed. “It’s a vital conversation to be having, and we can all leave with saying that one-size-fits-all doesn’t work in today’s marketplace.”

“We have to expand our thinking to include more choices and options,” Snider, Fox’s chairman and CEO, pointed out in her panel discussion with Ken Ziffren during UCLA Law School’s 41st annual Entertainment Symposium. “We are facing increased competition for attention,” she said of the era of Peak TV and emergence of digital platforms. “I think it is inevitable that we will always be around, and that we will derive revenues from different sources,” she said, balancing the best of both possible futures for the industry.


With that, maybe the formal “Entertainment Madness: Keeping All The Balls In The Air” title of the two-day event at the Freud Playhouse was the best indication of where today’s keynote today was going to go. “In this feast-or-famine marketplace,” Snider bluntly admitted to Ziffren, “there is a choice and there’s road kill.”
“I do think there are going to be new products to be offered to people to watch moves at home — I do,” she said, half-joking with the LA Film Czar and to laughs from the crowd. He was trying to get her to jump more into the discussion about windowing in a Netflix and Amazon world. “I think it will be incremental revenue for us,” the self-described high-functioning introvert said more seriously. “We love our devices, but none of my devices are any good to me if I didn’t have good sh*t to watch,” she made clear.


In charge of Fox since taking over from Jim Gianopulos last summer, the UCLA Law School alum and former DreamWorks CEO also told the symposium audience that she tries to find a balance between tentpoles and smaller films on her slate.


“It’s not about the size or genre of the movie,” Snider said, as Fox still is riding the powerful wave of Logan at the box office. “I can love a movie like Deadpool or Kingsmen because we surprised ourselves as much as I can love a movie like The Revenant or Hidden Figures.”


“It does feel like the bigger studios have made bet on the bigger pictures, but I do feel there is an opportunity for other avenues,” she added. “We are committed to make a variety of films, but we have to ask ourselves about every picture, particularly the smaller ones: does this require seeing in a theater, is it cinematic?


It’s a question Fox has good answers for right now.

Coming right off the $464 million and growing worldwide gross success of Logan and the acclaim of Hidden Figures, and with Ridley Scott’s upcoming Alien: Covenant and Matt Reeves’ War For The Planet Of The Apes in its arsenal, Fox is looking well positioned in the tentpole universe. Then of course there are those James Cameron Avatar sequels and another Deadpool further down the line, among other projects.


The sequel of the unexpected Marvel’s Ryan Reynolds-led R-rated hit of last year got a shout-out from Snider as she and Ziffren discussed how she and her team plan their schedules and release dates. “Deadpool 2 will have more swagger to scare people off and choose a date than Deadpool 1,” Snider said of the weight tentpole sequels offer in a crowded marketplace.

The two-day UCLA symposium wraps this afternoon.

Perhaps the key is for the studio to keep cultivating creative talent and continuously building excellent ties with actors and filmmakers to continue to innovate in terms of storytelling, which has always been the age-old reason for the filmmaking business!

And maybe that is the reason why FOX was positive about both producing and distributing a forthcoming movie musical called THE GREATEST SHOWMAN!

The film boasts of creative talent who have been recognized for their ability and a strong cast known for the required skills for a film musical!

Jo

[jo]

Overseas movie markets experience flat growth!

In a Surprise, the Overseas Movie Box Office Shows No Growth

By BROOKS BARNES
MARCH 22, 2017


LOS ANGELES — Hollywood’s overseas engine conked out in 2016.

the last decade, movie studios have relied on the international box office for most of their growth. From 2006 to last year, ticket sales in the United States and Canada increased 20 percent, to $11.4 billion. The foreign box office increased 67 percent in that period, to $27.2 billion.

In some years since 2006, the annual increase in overseas sales has been as high as 14 percent, with markets like China growing rapidly.

So it was startling Wednesday when the Motion Picture Association of America said overseas ticket sales had zero growth last year as increases in countries like Brazil and Japan could not offset steep declines elsewhere. Germany was down 13 percent. Britain dropped 10 percent. Mexico plunged 15 percent.
China was flat.

Growth in China was held back by a variety of factors, including a crackdown on box office fraud, fewer ticket subsidies and more discerning consumers. With an eye toward future growth, American studios are trying to increase the number of their films that China allows to be shown. The annual quota is 34 foreign films.
Still, a stronger dollar was the primary culprit for the foreign falloff, the Motion Picture Association of America and the National Association of Theater Owners said Wednesday on a conference call. “We believe it’s purely based on currency issues,” said John Fithian, president of the theater owners’ association.

Mr. Fithian and Christopher J. Dodd, chief executive of the film association, which represents Hollywood’s six biggest studios, emphasized that global ticket sales had increased 1 percent, to $38.6 billion, because of a 2 percent increase in sales in the United States and Canada. Mr. Fithian called that result “outstanding” and a “huge accomplishment,” particularly since many analysts had predicted a domestic decline.

[jo]

CinemaCon in Las Vegas opens today where theater distributors hold their annual convention (formerly known as ShoWest) -- and one of the major controversies is the direction of the distribution process and how the theatrical window now feels threatened by the encroachment of other windows ( demanded by the younger generation who wants more immediate access beyond cinemas) . What lies ahead?

deadline.com/2017/03/pvod-box-office-theater-chains-screening-room-major-studios-1202051067/

[jo]

Btw, FOX has a presentation slate at CinemaCon on its last day. Will they present something from THE GREATEST SHOWMAN? Please scroll down to the very end for the presentation on March 30, 2017.

cinemacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/2017-SCHEDULE-OF-EVENTS-CinemaCon-01-28-2017.pdf

When it was called ShoWest, the annual convention presented HUGH JACKMAN the STAR OF THE YEAR AWARD for his forthcoming theatrical exhibitions for the year 2006. Six movies were released that - year : XMen:The Last Stand/Scoop/Flushed Away/Happy Feet/The Fountain/The Prestige!

On an earlier convention, when Hugh was a newbie actor in Hollywood -- it was where he famously stood in line before Clint Eastwood ( where Hugh introduced himself by saying that some people tell him how they sort of looked alike ... and Clint famously told him : "Kid, you're holding up the line"   ).



Jo

[jo]

Jim Gianopulos, longtime FOX studio chief, has now rejoined his first employer PARAMOUNT STUDIOS as CEO! It was during his very successful tenure at FOX when Hugh started his journey with the XMen franchise. He and Hugh also worked closely together for the many annual charity events for MPTF. In the last one late last year, Hugh gave a special tribute to him!

deadline.com/2017/03/paramount-jim-gianopulos-new-chairman-1202051078/

[jo]

A good read from The Hollywood Reporter on the important " takeaways" from the recent CinemaCon!


www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/5-takeaways-cinemacon-990310

[jo]

Another article on evolving developments, as periscoped from the recent CinemaCon --

www.indiewire.com/2017/04/cinemacon-2017-winners-losers-dunkirk-wonder-woman-alien-covenant-vod-1201799513/


And who says women do not make excellent visionaries and executives ?!!

Emma Watts, Stacey Snider, Chris Aronson, Elizabeth Gabler, Vanessa Morrison and Pam Levine
Rob Latour/REX/Shutterstock



2. Best in Show went to Fox

While Warner Bros., Paramount and Sony are undergoing management upheaval, Fox has already established its new team, led by talented women under chairman Stacy Snider: Emma Watts (Fox), Elizabeth Gabler (Fox 2000), Vanessa Morrison (Animation) and Pam Levine (marketing). They and Fox distribution chief Chris Aronson orchestrated the best presentation of the Con, complete with dance numbers and Hugh Jackman promoting his turn as P.T. Barnum in original musical “The Great Showman.

[jo]

Btw, Stacey Snider was a Spielberg protégé at DreamWorks -- hence, this photo at the premiere of REAL STEEL --

Previously Snider was the Co-Chairman/CEO of DreamWorks beginning in 2006. Prior to joining DreamWorks, Snider was Chairman of Universal Pictures from 1999 to 2006.Wikipedia[

It seems Hugh and Ms Snider go back a long way in terms of box office successes -- here's a photo from the premiere of VAN HELSING ( Universal Studios) --

[jo]

It seems Ms. Snider ( who is a snappy dresser) must also be a secret Ozalot

[jo]

A writer makes the case for mature moviegoers as a slice of audiences that Hollywood should not ignore --

www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/face-it-hollywood-is-missing-the-boomer-boat_us_58eebad0e4b048372700d55b

Face It: Hollywood Is Missing The Boomer Boat
04/12/2017 07:59 pm ET


By Michele Willens


Confession: I took myself one afternoon to see “Rogue One.” On a recent Friday night, I saw “Beauty and the Beast,” without a kid in tow.

So why are the big studios ignoring me?

It is hardly news that those in the movie business are focused on young viewers, who they believe will not only see their action movies once, but multiple times, and eagerly await the sequels. Most targeted are the males, the idea being, I suppose, that their girlfriends will demand a rom com in return. And then there are the animated movies, or their live action versions, which rack up the most dollars these days. Just this past week, the number one film at the box office was “The Boss Baby,” followed by “The Smurfs.”


Close behind the latter was “Going In Style,” starring Alan Arkin, Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine playing, well, three old codgers. One could hardly call its $12 million take-home ‘boffo,’ but then its entire budget would equal an hour’s work on one of the “tentpoles.” And it may gradually build an audience as the weeks pass.
Because, according to a new study by the AARP and Movio, the 50+ moviegoers are not only underserved in seeing their lives reflected in contemporary narratives, but underestimated as potential audiences. They represent money left on the table by an industry that stubbornly considers them invisible. (Welcome to our lives, guys) “This is a powerful force,” concluded the study, “bolstering blockbusters and creating lucrative new niches that don’t rely on major budgets and foreign success.”


The data may not qualify as Big, but it is there. Those who saw “Woman in Gold” last year, for example, went to the cinema twice as often as those who did not. “Sully,” starring 60-year old Tom Hanks and directed by 86-year old Clint Eastwood, told the story of a 58-year old pilot…and the movie made $124 million. (Of whom 57% were 50 and older) But a sizable percentage of older patrons also made it to many of the blockbusters.


Even though Hollywood is slow to get it, there are multiple factors as to why movie-going stats have changed, and why attention must be paid to the Boomer and Beyond folks. Ticket prices have escalated and frankly, that demographic has more money to spend. They also have more time and can go to the cinema during the afternoon. They can help build a film’s success by choosing to see it after the crowds have died down. While TV has become seriously competitive in content and quality, the 50+ers still prefer much of their entertainment on the large screen while the streaming society cares less. (Unless it is a highly touted 3D exception).


Besides deserving more recognition for its potential financial support, this demo should earn kudos for experimenting outside the box, either to stay in tune with the times, or to better relate to their children and grandchildren. They are trying to fight the narrowness that often sets in with older age, and they may have more curiosity than their progeny. When is the last time your self-involved child asked, “what did you do today, Mom?” I think it is fair to say my otherwise well-rounded son would put a gun to his head before he would see a Nancy Meyers film.


I would argue that even many of the seniors today don’t necessarily want to go to the movies to watch a long- married couple consider assisted suicide, or three old guys doing their version of “Hangover.” “Bucket List” was a hit, but it starred the perennially hip Jack Nicholson and the seemingly ageless Morgan Freeman. (Who has been playing old and wise since “Driving Miss Daisy”) Boomers prefer seeing attractive people in films and commercials, and they like to think that their sole experience of action need not entail falling. It is this group, after all, that winced the most when Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway stood clueless in front of the world.
None of this is to deny that the studios consider franchise films (the top ten earners last year were either animated or comic book adaptations) the least risk-averse. When the movies work, they generate profits abroad, not to mention toys and games at the amusement parks. Let’s face it, a “Sully” ride (“See if you can land it in the Hudson!”) or a Race of the Walkers (“How fast and furious are you?”) leave something to be desired. Still, neglecting this segment of moviegoers is not only hazardous financially, it is sending the dividends to television producers like Amazon and Netflix, who are stepping up.


I am in the business of covering the theatre world, where quite the opposite is at play. Most the ticket buyers are of a certain age, primarily because of ridiculously high prices and a lack of youthful interest in sitting unplugged for two and a half hours. While I confess to cringing when the hearing aids and phones go off, I do applaud their owners for getting dressed and showing up to hear literate dialogue. The Disney-fying of Broadway has certainly helped to attract younger audiences, but let us not forget who brought them there. This too should remind Hollywood that the kids who enjoy watching talking pets and babies on screen, are in the presence of paying parents and very often, grandparents.


It seems every time a 50+ movie does well, it becomes a story for ten minutes. (If it stars Meryl Streep or Helen Mirren, they are heralded as the only interesting women of their age). No one is expecting a trend here, but judging from the new study and recent results, it seems the perfect solution for a sputtering film industry may be including “mature” actors in proven genres. This year already, Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt bombed in “Passengers” while Hugh Jackman starred in “Logan,” which has made half a billion dollars. Talk about your hidden figures!

Add another hundred million dollars to the LOGAN box office results

[jo]

A major headache in the filmed entertainment industry is HACKING!

Remember what happened to an unfinished version of XMEN ORIGINS : WOLVERINE?

It was leaked way before the film was released ... and in an unfinished, unsatisfactory state! I remember Hugh saying then that his heart was broken, after so much hard work had gone into making the film.



Here's a very good article on how Hollywood can minimize such threats --


deadline.com/2017/05/cyber-theft-orange-is-the-new-black-10-ways-to-stop-content-theft-agency-hack-1202081519/

[jo]

Are summer movies still the uber-reliable box office commercial successes?

Or is franchise sequel fatigue setting in ?


www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-summer-box-office-20170505-story.html

[jo]

Renegotiation to ease the very limited entry of foreign movies to the China market.

chinafilminsider.com/us-delegation-renegotiate-china-film-quota-august-reports/

Hope GREATEST SHOWMAN will be a beneficiary. Two released musicals, Beauty & the Beast ($ 86 million) and La La Land ($ 36 million), had strong showing in China.