EXCLUSIVE: So this now means 20th Century Fox is getting behind both
Steven Spielberg’s earnest Lincoln biopic as well as Tim Burton’s horror genre film Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter. (“Preferably not releasing them at the same time,” one insider told me.) Such is the dichotomy of Hollywood these days. Or, as one of Deadline’s commenters says, can’t wait for the mashups. Participant Media is also a financier on DreamWorks’ Lincoln. It’s one of only two movies which DreamWorks is releasing in 2012 along with the small Welcome To People. But the studio keeps denying that its principal financial backer Reliance is backing away despite chatter to that effect. ”Not true that they’ve closed the spiggot,” an insider tells me. “It was just a tad ambitious having six movies at once last year. They should have been staggered.” Four
years in the making, Spielberg’s Lincoln stars Daniel Day-Lewis and has finished production. With a screenplay from Tony Kushner based on the bestselling book Team of Rivals by Doris Kerns Goodwin, Lincoln will be released domestically late this year through Disney’s Touchstone label. Twentieth Century Fox already is co-financing Spielberg’s Robopocalypse, a Drew Goddard-scripted adaptation of the Daniel H. Wilson epic novel about the human race’s attempt to survive an apocalyptic robot uprising. Disney will release domestically and Fox will distribute the film overseas. It will open in the U.S. on July 3, 2013.
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.


I can’t wait for the mashups
Looks like DreamWorks either doesn’t have faith in the project or is so short of cash that they’re selling the furniture to keep the lights on over there.
This is about Dreamworks being short on cash because of everything they’ve released that isn’t called The Help.
It’s hard to believe that Amblin/Dreamworks has reached this nadir… just proves that no-one is
immune to turmoil/contraction in the film industry. But I have always been perplexed why billionaires such as Steven don’t simply fund their own companies and not expose themselves to the uncertainty of dealing with amateurs/civillians? Self-funding would ensure total control, less waste, and allow a mogul to avoid embarrassing set-backs such as this. Rhetorical questions, but why is it always Other People’s Money?
I have dealt with many, many super-wealthy film people in financing projects and if you were ever, ever, ever to suggest they put a nickel of their own money into a movie they will never take your call again. It would suggest that their creative/executive experience weren’t contribution enough. It would also suggest they were self-financing because nobody else wanted to. It’s a nice idea, though.
It’s a whole new world order. Adapt or die. George Lucas Red Tails. George Clooney to a lesser extent via deferrals and working scale. Jim Cameron spends a lot his bread up front in pre-viz/development.
I always wondered that myself…especially someone like Spielberg. But your answer makes sense…their ego wouldn’t allow it…or deep down they just don’t have as much confidence as they pretend to.
Sam Waterston would make a great Lincoln. Bring on the “mash ups!”