EXCLUSIVE: It’s almost considered a foregone conclusion that HBO’s The Pacific will sweep the Emmy Award categories for miniseries, due in no small part to the writing work of co-executive producer Bruce C. McKenna who scripted 7 of the 10 installments and is nominated along with Robert Schenkkan for penning the final episode. Now, HBO’s sister company Warner Bros is getting in on his WWII action. The studio has made a preemptive buy of The Battle of Midway, a McKenna pitch for a 3D film about the June 4-6, 1942, turning point of the war. I’m told the studio bought the pitch late last week, and that it is being fast tracked, with McKenna expected to turn in a script in 8 weeks for a film that will likely carry a price tag around $200 million.
I’m told Akiva Goldsman’s Weed Road will be the producer of WB’s pic. The Battle of Midway took place six months after the demoralizing surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. When it was over, the supremacy of the Imperial Japanese Navy was lost along with 4 of its aircraft carriers and 1 heavy cruiser. The Japanese never recovered. The Pacific miniseries, which reportedly cost north of $200 million, has already won 7 Creative Arts Emmy Awards; it’s up for 24 total. The mini was exec produced by Steven Spielberg and Playtone’s Tom Hanks and Gary Goetzman, the same guys who were executive producers on Band of Brothers, for which McKenna wrote three episodes, was Emmy-nominated and won a Writers Guild Award. McKenna’s repped by CAA.
The Battle Of Midway has been captured before on film: in 1942, John Ford directed the Oscar-winner The Battle of Midway using actual battle footage shot by the Navy. There was also the 1976 film Midway starring Charlton Heston, Henry Fonda, James Coburn and Hal Holbrook. The latest deal comes at a time when Universal Pictures is moving forward with the Peter Berg-directed Battleship, another war film involving big boats with a big price tag. But the similarities end there. Berg reportedly will make his film 2D, and the officers on his ship will be shooting at aliens. Warner Bros’ plan will be a closer cousin to Pearl Harbor or Saving Private Ryan and the studio will take a step further by shooting it 3D.






“Yea boss… $200 million and we can use CGI and won’t have to use any of that old war footage that was REAL like in the Chuck Heston version. Oh, Pearl Harbor lost a buncha money? Oh….”
$200mill could do five or ten NEW movies we’ve never seen before, but nooooooooo……
To the “chadster,” that would be a big AFFIRMATIVE! Wanna War?
Watching a WW2 movie based on true evens with 3D glasses on seems somehow wrong. How about making a great movie on one of the most amazing battles ever. And treating it with some respect.
The most heroic battle of tha Pacific War will not be made – the Battle of Samar. People wouldn’t believe what Taffy-3 did that day.
Here’s my take: I hated the 1976 Midway. Tora! Tora! Tora! was a damn good movie that deserved a better follow-up than it got (Midway wasn’t a sequel but let’s call it a follow-up). Years later Pearl Harbor comes along and succeeds in making Tora cubed look even better. Now, I love 3D. I hate most 3D movies. 3D, most of the time, is a gimmick used to shill crappy movies for higher prices. If done right, however,(Avatar) you get a classic (or a near classic; I was impressed with Avatar, just not that impressed). I find the idea of a 3D Midway highly intriguing. When one thinks of it, no filmmaker has depicted a modern naval battle in the post ‘Saving Private Ryan’ era. Most neo-WWll films take place on land. Recreating a crucial sea battle from WWll using modern effects offers fascinating possibilities. My main fear is that McKenna and/or the Hollywoodheads will ‘Pearl Harbor’ the damn thing and crap it up with a stupid romance, bad history, and rah! rah! patriotism.
The Suits will “crap it up”, as you say; they always do; can’t keep their furry little mitts of the bread-dough). It will become a full-color 3-D version of “In Harm’s Way” (1965 — John Wayne, Kirk Douglas, Patricia Neal; execrably directed by Otto Preminger).
“off the bread-dough” … not “of the bread-dough”; sorry.
Back to my day job.
To all of the whiners who didn’t like “Pacific”‘s story ~ you want a story, read fiction or good history. At least understand what the series is all about and stop comparing it to something is never was intended to be.
Obviously you are historically ignorant and can’t place “The Pacific”, Midway, or probably WWII, in the historical context that demonstrates it’s actual relevance and importance on how the world is constituted today. You want entertainment – fine. Entertain yourselves, but criticizing something you do not understand by shallow and self-centered argument demonstrates only your failure to get the point. What’s the point?, you ask. Merely beyond your grasp.
I don’t expect this to change anyone’s opinions, but I feel much better having said it.
” … you want a story, read fiction or good history …”.
What?
“This is the business we’ve chosen …” (quick! name the movie!). And what business is this? “This business” is cinematic story-telling; all it really is. It involves much more besides but at-the-end-of-the-day it all boils down to telling a good story to a receptive audience.
Remember that great come-on line from “Field of Dreams”? “If we build it they will come.”? If we build it wrong or badly they won’t. All the compromises and insane convolutions are part of figuring out how best to build it, story structure especially. And nothing is obvious, not even aspects that are obviously wrong. A few decades ago a producer all but chased me around a table trying to pin down what story I was telling because I hadn’t figured it out; thought I had only to discover (to my absolute horror) that I hadn’t. And it’s vital because “If it’s not on the page it’s not on the screen.” Some big nobody said that … last name “Spielberg”, and he was probably quoting some other big nobody named “Ford”, or “Kurosawa”. Truffaut? Renoir? von Sternberg? Griffith … Moliere; Shakespeare; Seneca? Aristotle?
“Obviously you are historically ignorant and can’t place “The Pacific”, Midway, or probably WWII, in the historical context …”.
Oh, I can place them all just fine. I just can’t place them all inside a 104 minute shoebox. The crew that produced “Band of Brothers” did; why it worked (“How Movies Work”, by Bruce Kawin) because they figured it out. As for your “historical context”, today’s audiences don’t give a RA about it — yours or anybody’s. Half the kids in high school can’t define the term or use it in a sentence. A quarter think Hitler was allied with Roosevelt against Churchill. Another quarter never even heard of Roosevelt and think WW-2 involved slavery and Lincoln.
Misquoting that big nobody named Spielberg again: “I can make a movie any way I want. I just can’t make you go see it.” That’s the problem to be solved: how to structure a story so millions of people will actually stand in line in order TO PAY to see it (also, figuring out how to finance the production itself).
As for the rest of it — what you wrote — it’s neither-here-nor-there. To utter such sentiments while pitching would only provoke snide laughter after you left the room. Da Biz can be so cruel because there’s no time for fools.