Specialty Box Office: ‘Moonrise Kingdom’ … 
SUMMER SLUMP? Will Smith’s ‘MIB3′ Slows … 
Cannes Finale: The Jury Talks And Hammond’s Analysis … 
Nicole Kidman Speaks Out On Taking Risks, Roles And Taking … 
Oscilloscope Takes U.S. Rights To ‘Reality’ 
‘Mud’: Did Cannes Save One Of The Best For … 
Cannes Podcast: Pete Hammond On ‘Lawless’, … 
Over-Achievers Of This Year’s Upfront 
Aussie Pay-TV Shakeup Impacts Hollywood 
USA: ‘Rebounding’ & ‘Modern … 
Interview: Philip Kaufman At Cannes With ‘Hemingway … 
R.I.P. Television Mogul Lee Rich 
Cannes Biz Shines Despite Wind & Rain 
Full 2011-2012 TV Season Series Rankings 
2011-12 Season Network Rankings: Fox Still On Top But Down, … 
HLN Set To Air Daytime Emmy Awards 
Grant Bowler Cast As Richard Burton Opposite Lindsay Lohan … 
UPDATE: Dish Network And Broadcasters Ask Courts To Decide … 
Cannes Surprise Screening: Change Of Plans On Juan Antonio … 
Kevin Hart In Talks To Join Kevin James In ‘Valet … 
Anthony Hopkins Up For ‘Red 2′ Villain; Can … 
Paramount Delaying 2 Oscar-Buzzed Pics
UPDATE: So now we have a glimpse of a new Paramount in the post-DreamWorks divorce, current credit crunch, era. Also the studio finally clarified the job duties of Adam Goodman and Brad Weston which I’ve already reported. They have the same title, but different duties! And they’re not co-heads! (Can’t we all get along?) ”We now own and control 12 years of DreamWorks development and assure continuity with Adam Goodman staying at Paramount,” a bigwig told me this morning. ”He’ll be the point person interacting with Stacy and Steven.” In all there are 100 active DreamWorks projects staying at Paramount, and 35 being developed together with DreamWorks. I’m told that the production and personnel savings to Paramount now that it’s “one consolidated organization again” will be $50 million. As an insider summed up, “We’re keeping everything that makes money and giving away anything that costs money.” Here’s the press release:
LOS ANGELES, CALIF., October 15, 2008 — Paramount Pictures said today it has reduced its release target to twenty films annually to more effectively compete in the changing marketplace and to realize the maximum financial benefit of the series of new operating efficiencies achieved by the studio. Under the new targets, Paramount plans to release twelve films, including MTV Films and Nickelodeon Movies, and up to four additional releases from its Paramount Vantage unit. Paramount will also continue to distribute 2-4 films a year produced by DreamWorks Animation and Marvel Studios.
The new release strategy complements proactive efficiency efforts announced earlier in the year. In June, Paramount restructured the Vantage operation to combine its marketing, distribution and physical production departments with Paramount’s, which eliminated redundancies and resulted in overhead savings. Moving forward, Vantage’s new creative strategy will be to release up to four lower priced, cutting edge films a year.
The recently announced departure of the DreamWorks principals and many of its staff enables Paramount to further integrate creative operations to maximize its top talent. Adam Goodman will be moving from DreamWorks to Paramount Pictures as President of Production, overseeing a creative staff who will manage the current DreamWorks projects and creative relationships, as well as new development now for Paramount. Brad Weston will continue as President of Production for Paramount Pictures, and will continue to supervise existing creative staff overseeing their ongoing development, talent relationships and new development. Both will be supported by shared functions and both will work in tandem with their respective creative staffs on developing projects for Paramount, as well as its labels, MTV Films and Nickelodeon Movies. Goodman will report dually to John Lesher, President of Paramount Film Group, on creative areas and to Rob Moore, Vice Chairman of Paramount Pictures on business issues.
“Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman has laid out a very smart strategy that will put Viacom in great position to prosper in the current economic climate,” said Brad Grey, Chairman and CEO of Paramount Pictures Corporation. “In line with that strategy, we at Paramount are taking steps to ensure our business and creative plans are sound and viable for the long term. Today’s changes leverage the improvements we have already made and update our output in alignment with our global ambitions. We have a strong team and structure in place; we have right-sized our overhead; and we have established a slate volume that balances our financial goals with our creative objectives. I am confident we can continue to meet our long-term financial targets and offer a strong and diverse slate of films.”
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ...
I think it’s incredible that the bigger a movie company gets, the fewer movies it’s capable of making. There’s probably a mathematical formula somewhere that illustrates that any movie company can only get so big before it starts to seize up because of simple creative inertia.
I think it’s also somehow connected to said company’s pursuit of buying or creating new outlets. The more channels, networks, etc… you own, the less content you seem capable of making for those outlets.
But more importantly what are the Home Entertainment and Online divisions doing? It would make sense to curtail the huge theatrical movies which put a strain on cashflow, but not so much the smaller, economically self-sufficient movies which make their money back near instantly upon their DVD release.
And that’s where the money is…
Furious, it has more to do with the ridiculously high cost of marketing, with each film now costing up to $40-$50 million a pop.
well, let’s hope that by reducing their release of new movies, they’ll focus on NEW, GOOD STORIES instead of relying on remakes, adaptations and sequels!
Only 20 films? I thought a studio like Paramount would release ten times the number. Are they looking at less box office revneue? less pull to the box office? With all the small production companies around are they up against a strong or weak film market?
Whatever happened to “small” movies? (And I’m not talking about “indie” prestige wankery.) Why does every movie have to be the next Iron Man?
1970s: A movie gets made if it has the potential to make money.
1980s: A movie gets made if it has the potential to start a franchise.
1990s: A movie gets made if its franchise has the potential for synergistic merchandising.
2000s: A movie gets made if its brand has the potential for a global marketing campaign.
Hope Paramount has some good brands lined up. They’ll need every one to be stellar if they plan on making money.
Weston vs. Goodman. We all know how this is gonna end.
Weston’s clearly on his way out…
These creeps should consider raising their standards to see profits rise. Even mega popcorn movies like Dark Knight have demonstrated a movie has to be WORTH WATCHING MORE THAN ONCE to be a smash hit. Fourteen dollars for a movie is reckless, considering how bad even well reviewed movies are.
Expect a revival of extremely well written, middle budget crime movies that take chances and get new audiences, as gritty, surprising, non-tech, no flash crime stories are becoming increasingly exotic.
Alexander, that’s brilliant. Thank you.
It’s true, sadly. It’d be great to see qaulity movies being made for the sake of story, and not for franchise potential.
Will we ever return to the golden age of filmmaking?
And please, for the love of God, don’t say “Dark Knight” was a good film. It was decent, for a comic-book movie. Ledger was fantastic. But it was not a good film. The ending was cheeze whizz, the entire thing bloated. Same with Iron Man: the ending was a wheel of Gouda. So dumb.
I’m so tired of these “tentpole” movies being accepted by mainstream media as “dark” and “edgy.”
Alexander here’s another trend that I caught. Cinemas closing down all across the USA. Go the cinematreasures.com site and u will see the stories. But it’s not all doom and gloom there. New cinemas are being open but the older mall cinemas are being phased out. Beside the dvd,internet competition,today’s filmmkakers face less cinema markets to open becouse of closures.
PARAMOUNT GOT MARRIED TO A DREAM
GOOD FLICKS ROSE TO THE TOP JUST LIKE CREAM
BUT THE LOVE RAN ITS COURSE
TO A FUCKED UP DIVORCE
NOW STEVEN’S BACK WITH HIS HOME TEAM.
if it leaves room for small indies to make some more money then this must be a good thing
I’ve got 20 bucks with a colleague riding on Goodman. I give Weston 6 months tops.
Furious, it has more to do with the ridiculously high cost of marketing, with each film now costing up to $40-$50 million a pop.
Actually, I think that’s part of the inertia affecting companies get too big. To justify their size, they need big movies that are big monster hits. That means bloated budgets (both production & marketing) to provide the escapist spectacle and let people know where it’s playing, massive openings covering thousands of screens, and increasingly narrow “windows” to release these films for the maximum opening weekend audience at summer and other key holidays.
There was a time when studio films just had to do well to be profitable, now they have to be record breaking blockbusters, just to break even.
$60 million is now considered “low budget” by Hollywood standards. In those heady days of the 1980s you could make a big sci-fi epic and a huge ad campaign for that kind of money. Now all it will get you is 1 star, if you’re lucky, 1 car chase scene, and no ad campaign.
They’re pricing themselves out of business. It’s that simple.
Now some may see these times as an opportunity. Independent distributors used to cash in when studios contracted their slates, by filling the gap with modest, but entertaining, crowd pleasers that the big studios wouldn’t touch, that also didn’t need to break records to be profitable. Someone could step in to do that today, and probably make a good living it at if they played their cards right and didn’t get too big for themselves.
A 50 million dollar savings is a joke considering that such a savings is smaller than the budget for one single film???!!! All the studios should shrink their film budgets drastically, even for high concept block busters, for that matter!!! It shouldn’t take 150 to 200 million dollars to make a quality block buster. They can make such pictures for 60 to 80 million dollars with no sweat, and dare I say, for even as low as 50 million dollars???
How is it that the best entertainment is now being found on television these days, with shows like Two and a Half Men, Heroes, Chuck and Galactica, etc., shows that have much smaller budgets and prep time per script, and per episode??? Answer: They have less cooks in the kitchen, per show…and per episode, versus a film which could be in development for years, with every studio executive, star, producer and director involved in a particular movie trying to put their two cents in the process in order to change a 120 page script, which was fine to begin with. But no, when you have 150 million dollars on the line for a block buster, and too much gestation time on the project’s hands, then the executive producer starts taking advice from his wife on how he should change the script, then his mistress weighs in, and then his kids have an opinion…and his new secretary who he has the hots for, has an opinion…and the stripper he just got a $5000 dollar lap dance from!!! This is the microcosm of what happens to every VIP on a film, from producers, to the stars, to the executives…as all of their loved ones and personal staffs start giving opinions on the production, and it, the production, begins to change in unrecognizable ways, for the worse, not the better!!! Add to that, nervous execs and producers who are often afraid that their careers are resting on a single block buster film, and it creates a climate where they interfer with a film too much, out of simple pressure and stress!!!
Speed Racer cost well north of 100 million dollars, but could have been shot on real locations, re-dressed stunt vehicles, real stunts, and practical effects…etc., for half of the money!!! Television show producers, cut corners all the time, using stock footage, employing creative writing…including clever plot twists, and ultimately, with their fast forward schedules and little time for too many changes, or outside interference from the spouses and date mates of execs, producers and so on, tv shows are besting even the most well funded films, with the finest quality controls, in terms of entertainment value. Listen to audiences, they will tell you, most tv series are now better than most movies, minute for minute, hour for hour, including the most prized films!!!
The solution??? Again, shrink the budgets of these films!!! You do that, and there is less on the line, and less chance of this unneccessary re-tinkering on films, from scripts on. It reminds me of the old joke of “How many electricians does it take to screw in a light bulb?”, well, “How many executives, producers, stars, and directors do you need to re-write a simple script on a comic book character???” Hello, reduce the budgets of films, reduce prep time for films, cut the production shooting schedules to shorter durations, and bring in all digital distribution!!! This will save great amounts of money, and bring back sanity to the process of filmmaking???
Brad Grey has wanted Weston out of there for a while now. Doubling up duties with Goodman just solidifies it. Either way, neither guy can run that toxic group of execs. What do they do there all day long? We know what Lesher does w/ his “staff” behind closed doors!
Goodbye Paramount. You had your chance to harvest the golden egg (Dreamworks) but you blew your chances with some egoistical execs you have running the firm
Here’s to good run you’ve had. We miss you NOT!
You can bet against Weston, fine, but never bet for Goodman- he will make a power play or alienate talent and without Spielberg to wipe his butt he will be screwed. Remember, this is a studio where their biggest producer Lorenzo is known for a failed power play against his boss at Warners.. Politics is what matters at Paramount not filmmaking and frankly I give Goodman till June.
Loved your article on ‘Fireproof’ and other faith-based movies. This to me is the future regardless of whether Paramount produces 200 films a year.
Faith-based films are going to do very well in a world of uncertainty. Instead of relying on ‘man’ as the hero (always a mistake), faith-based film say ‘God’ is in control and is ultimately the decider of every outcome.
To me, this always made more sense.
Bring back Balaban’s Law.
come on,
only 20 movies. I just hope they’ll make a sequel to the next friday the 13th remake.
What a dumb decision.
But on the plus side, maybe less crappy movies and more quality control? It’s about high time Paramount churns out their own good movies, rather than just financing/releasing movies from Dreamworks and Marvel.
Because if Marvel opts out and settles for another distributor a la Dreamworks, Paramount will go the way of New Line if they don’t have their own franchises set up and promoted right.
There’s still going to be an enormous amount of product from Dreamworks films flowing through Paramount Studios for many years to come. It doesn’t even seem like a real split at all. Sounds like a win win situation for both studios.
I sense a good business model at the P.. Select the best 20 films and try to fit all 4 squares. Sound.
what is Balaban’s theroem??