Filmonic » Warner Bros.

Columbia to pick up He-Man?

Liam — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:47:45 +0000

A few weeks ago Warner Bros. and Mattell parted ways as they didn’t see eye to eye over the direction of the He-Man movie they were developing. Warner Bros. picked up the property in 2007, hired a few writers and placed Kung Fu Panda director John Stevenson at the helm. However, creative differences got in the way and both parties decided not to renew the option when it ran out. Potential franchises don’t last long on the marketplace, and now according to Heat Vision Columbia have stepped in to develop the film.

Just weeks after “Masters of the Universe” parted ways with Warner Bros., the Mattel toy property is in negotiations to be preemptively picked up by Columbia with Escape Artists attached to produce.
Stevenson is no longer attached and the project would be built from the ground up.
Run by partners Todd Black, Jason Blumenthal and Steve Tisch, Escape Artists’ credits include “The Taking of Pelham 123,” “Knowing” and “The Pursuit of Happyness.”

When the movie was at Warner Bros. it was described as a “gritty fantasy” and “Lord of the Rings meets The Matrix meets Batman Begins”. From these descriptions it sounded as though it was heading in the right direction, so I’m curious to find out what caused the creative differences. Will Columbia continue down the darker route or will they make it kid friendly so that Mattell can sell more toys?

No current plans for a new Superman movie

Liam — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:08:33 +0000

Two events occurred recently that could potentially kick start work on a new Superman movie. The first was a legal case which meant Warner Bros no longer held the rights to Superman’s origins (they were given back to Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel and his heirs). The case also ruled that Warner Bros. have to put the Superman rights into use by 2011, otherwise they will lose them.

The second event was the formation of DC Entertainment which Warner Bros. created to focus solely on D.C superhero movies. However, despite all this head of DC Entertainment, Diane Nelson, has said that no work on a new Superman movie is taking place.

From MTV:

“We actually don’t have any current plans for Superman,” said Nelson when asked if the new environment (and the recent legal decision regarding the character) made a “Superman” movie more or less likely in the near future… We’ve obviously done a lot of great things behind the property in our history, and it’s a key part of the family, but we don’t have current plans behind Superman,” she said.

As I said, these events are recent, so it could take a while before they start thinking about a new movie (and before they realise the rights deadline is upon them). I think they may have left it a bit too late for a direct sequel, so perhaps a reboot is in order (Yes, another superhero reboot) or perhaps a ‘ten years later’ kind of sequel.

Warner Bros. and He-Man part ways

Liam — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 23:54:13 +0000

We haven’t heard much on the He-Man movie for a while, and now we know why. In January Kung-Fu Panda director John Stevenson was hired to direct the movie under the name Masters of the Universe. Then in May Warner Bros. hired a new writer to work his magic and changed the film’s title to Greyskull. Now Variety are reporting that Warner Bros. have decided to let the project go.

Mattel and WB didn’t see eye to eye over the direction of the project and made a mutual decision to let the option lapse this month. Story revolves around He-Man, a prince who becomes a warrior battling the evil Skeletor for control of his magical homeland.
Mattel will take back the property and set it up elsewhere. The expectation is that director John Stevenson (”Kung Fu Panda”) will remain with the project, but not Silver, who is exclusive to WB.

Apparently Warner Bros. saw the movie as a “gritty fantasy”, and this could have been why they didn’t see eye to eye with Mattel. I’m just speculating but I’m going to assume Mattel would have wanted it to make it more kid friendly so they could sell more toys. That’s their whole business plan after-all. Hopefully another studio will pick it up and do it justice, because it could be quite epic if done right.

New Superman film will probably be in the works by 2011

Liam — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:06:32 +0000

Warner Bros., DC Comics and Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel (and his heirs) have been in a legal war over the Superman rights and money for a while, and now Warner Bros. and DC Comics have won a favorable ruling according to Variety:

In a decision announced Wednesday, U.S. Judge District Court Judge Stephen G. Larson found that the license fees the studio paid to corporate sibling DC Comics didn’t represent “sweetheart” deals as they weren’t below fair market value. That means the heirs will be able seek profits only from DC Comics — which earned $13.6 million from Warner Bros. for the 2006 release of “Superman Returns” — rather than from Warner Bros. as well.
The judge, who conducted a 10-day bench trial, also noted that Warner Bros. chairman Alan Horn had testified that he hopes to make another “Superman” movie but added that the property wasn’t under development at the studio, that no script had been written and that the earliest another “Superman” pic could be released would be in 2012.

For whatever reason the Superman rights will revert back to the Siegel estate and that of co-creator Joe Shuster in 2013, so Warner Bros. only have until 2011 to start work on another Superman movie otherwise they will lose the rights. They’ve had since 2006 to decide what they want to do next and nothing has happened, so if they want cash in with another Superman movie they will need to decide what they want to do soon. Will it be a sequel or a reboot? Whichever route they decide go down we will find out over the next 18 months.

Is It Really All About The $$$? Amy Pascal and Sony Gain Clooney, Ditch Soderbergh

Dave — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:39:56 +0000

In case you haven’t followed the ridiculous process of Amy Pascal of Sony and Columbia Tri-Star suddenly putting a full halt and turnaround on the baseball pic Moneyball, I direct you to post number one HERE and post number two HERE.

Now, we’re hearing the end of this argument and some details about what exactly went wrong with the script to make Pascal halt the $58 million dollar production mere days before the project began filming with Brad Pitt in the starring role. The word on the digital street was that the script that director Steven Soderbergh delivered was so tonally different from the Pascal-approved draft written by Schindler’s List scribe Steven Zaillian that she ground the movie to a halt. At that point, Sony had already pumped an estimated $10 million dollars into the development of the script.

What were the script details that caused Pascal to boot Soderbergh off the flick, and why is Sony so eager to save money on Brad Pitt films while risking money on George Clooney films?

The Big Picture LA Times Blog actually talked to Pascal about why Moneyball didn’t get started:

“I’ve wanted to work with Steven forever, because he’s simply a great filmmaker,” Pascal told me today. “But the draft he turned in wasn’t at all what we’d signed up for. He wanted to make a dramatic reenactment of events with real people playing themselves. I’d still work with Steven in a minute, but in terms of this project, he wanted to do the film in a different way than we did.”
Soderbergh’s last-minute revisions represented a huge change from the shooting script I read when I was working on a story about the film during its pre-production. The script, written by Oscar winner Steve Zaillian, was a baseball movie, but it was loaded with great comic moments and dazzling dialogue that captured the frenetic energy of Beane, a strikingly good-looking former phenom who washed out after a brief stint in the majors, only to resurface as a general manager who operated more like “Entourage’s” Ari Gold than the buttoned-down insiders who normally run big-league teams. Beane was a born hustler, always wheeling and dealing, staying one step ahead of his rivals as he scouted unlikely unknown minor leaguers to replace the high-priced free agents a small-market team like the Oakland A’s couldn’t afford.
Soderbergh wouldn’t talk to me about all this, but it seems clear that he became obsessed with authenticity, replacing many of Zaillian’s inspired scripted set-pieces with actual interviews with the real people who were involved in the events. The Soderbergh aesthetic, according to one source close to the film, was simple: If it didn’t happen in real life, it wasn’t going to be in the movie.

Summation: Steven Soderbergh went for an authentic re-telling of real-life events and Pascal wanted the Brad Pitt, A-List, possible Oscar nod movie she signed up for.

This would be an interesting creative vs. business argument if there wasn’t another side to the story: the Soderbergh-working-with-Major-League-Baseball side. In an interesting Left Coast/Right Coast bit of reporting dialogue, it was The New York Times that added the new piece of the puzzle:

One reason was to win the approval of Major League Baseball, which was not happy with some factual liberties in Mr. Zaillian’s version. Such approval is crucial in a baseball film that intends to use protected trademarks.
“Typically, on a film like this, we look at it for historical accuracy,” said Matthew Bourne, a vice president of Major League Baseball for public relations. “We’ve been in touch with Soderbergh and Sony, and they’ve been receptive to our requests.”
What baseball saw as accurate, Sony executives saw as being too much a documentary. Mr. Soderbergh, for instance, planned to film interviews with some of the people who were connected to the film’s story.
The executives, who had just seen disappointing results from “The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3” and “Year One,” rebelled. Ms. Pascal and Matt Tolmach, co-president of Sony’s film operation, personally told Mr. Soderbergh of their dissatisfaction.

Summation: In one corner we have Steven Soderbergh and Major League Baseball and in the other we have Sony, feeling the hurt of Year One and The Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3 underperforming as DVD and home video sales decline.

I can understand not wanting to launch a $58 million dollar Brad Pitt film unless you’re damn sure that you will make your money back, but there’s one more piece of news that seems to contradict this fiscally-responsible attitude Pascal seems to be relying on.

Namely, Sony has acquired George Clooney’s production company Smokehouse Pictures after Clooney and production partner Grant Heslov left Warner Brothers. Which is odd, because if Clooney’s flicks were making bank, Warners would have put up a fight, right?

Not to mention some interesting inclusions in the press release:

The Smokehouse Pictures team includes Senior Vice President of Development Nina Wolarsky, and creative executive Alex Meenehan. The company is currently in development on the following projects with Warner Bros:
THE CHALLENGE
Screenplay by Aaron Sorkin. An adaptation of Jonathan Mahler’s nonfiction book chronicling the historic Supreme Court case in which two lawyers sued the Bush administration on behalf of accused terrorist Salim Hamdan.
OUR BRAND IS CRISIS
A satirical comedy about American spin doctors competing in the same Presidential election in Bolivia. Based on the documentary by Rachel Boynton, with a script by Peter Straughan (MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS).
FARRAGUT NORTH
An adaptation of Beau Willimon’s critically acclaimed play, set during the Iowa primary of a presidential race.
ESCAPE FROM TEHRAN
The true story of how the CIA used a fake movie project to smuggle hostages out of 1979 Tehran. Chris Terrio is writing the screenplay.
THE TOURIST
A contemporary spy thriller about a spy who risks everything to reveal a conspiracy after he’s accused of a murder he didn’t commit. Based on the bestselling book by Olen Steinhauer. Tony Peckham is writing the screenplay.
THE INNOCENT MAN
Based on the bestselling nonfiction book by John Grisham, the true story of murder and injustice in a small town in Oklahoma. Adapted by David Gordon Green.

Any of those movies sound like a sure-fire hit to you? Probably not. They all sound interesting and intellectually challenging, as is the wont of Smokehouse Pictures, but marketable? As Will Smith would say: “Naw.”

As of now, Moneyball still exists as a project, though Soderbergh has been booted and Pitt is the only name attached. Pascal still has her finger on the Moneyball money button, since Steven was unable to drum up any other studio support for his accurate film while the script was in limited turnaround.

So here’s the question: What is Amy Pascal doing? Is she going to save money, make money, or simply refuse to roll the dice on a project based on creative integrity alone?

Guess what, Amy, you just made my watchlist (though you’ll never usurp the top Most Hated spot from NBC’s Ben Silverman).

How Studio Movies Die, Featuring Moneyball

Dave — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:26:57 +0000

The news around Moneyball has gotten worse, now that the studios have had the weekend and Monday to weigh the risks behind the Steven Soderbergh/Brad Pitt baseball film.

As explained previously (CLICK), Moneyball is a film based on the true story of William Lemar “Billy” Beane managing the Oakland A’s to a winning record without massively overloading the team’s budget. Pitt is attached to play Beane and comedian Dimitri Martin is one of the few other actors in the cast made up of real life baseball players.

Columbia head Amy Pascal put the project into limited turnaround, hoping either Warner Brothers, who had ties to Soderbergh or Paramount, which houses Brad Pitt’s production company Plan B.

It was a bad weekend to go to Paramount with last Friday’s executive shake-up changing the company’s creative development landscape and, according to The LA Times, a bad movie to shop around to Warners in the first place:

By Monday, Paramount and Warner Bros. had already decided to pass. Similarly budgeted dramas aimed at adults, such as “State of Play,” “Duplicity” and “The International,” have all fared poorly at the box office this year. “Moneyball” has the added burden of being about baseball, which would not only limit its appeal among women, but also overseas audiences. International receipts from theatrical, television and DVD sales typically account for more than half of a film’s total sales.
As studios continue to tighten their belts, those added up to more than enough reasons to flash a red light.
“In light of the economic climate, Warner and Paramount said they weren’t going to make the movie,” said Pitt’s manager, Cynthia Pett-Dante. She added that Pitt “totally supports Steven all the way” in his vision for the movie.
Soderbergh’s manager, Michael Sugar, declined comment on behalf of the director.

The details about how and what went wrong seem to vary from source to source. The LA Times piece sounds reasonable when suggesting that the current economic climate and short-comings of similarly themed films chased Columbia, Warners and Paramount away, but something feels off about that sentiment.

Judging from all reports, it seems that Soderbergh’s most recent draft made Pascal nervous about the financial prospects of a baseball film that needs to gross $100 million dollars to break even. What’s odd is that it doesn’t seem like the new draft was that drastically different, and given the above reasons cited by the Times, I can guarantee you that it’s always been an adult-themed baseball movie. Just what flick did Pascal think she was developing, and when did it start seeming like a bad idea?

We do know that Pascal and Soderbergh have met and agreed to disagree, which isn’t unusual for the director, who had a similarly convoluted and turnaround-filled process for his film Traffic (a picture studio execs were also nervous about, both because of it’s subtitled sequences and run-and-gun visual style), but Russ Fischer from /Film pointed me in the direction of a post on “The Hot Blog” that suggests Brad Pitt is “pulling a State Of Play” by holding up Moneyball and Pascal is falling on the poor-PR sword to save Pitt from a nasty industry reputation.

Sad thing is, if that report has any air of truth to it, we’ll never know. It’s not like Brad Pitt is hiring bush-league publicits.

For all intensive purposes, Moneyball is dead, at least with this particular cast and crew. Short of a financing miracle akin to DreamWorks’ Dubai connections (not that it worked out, but it was exciting), we probably won’t be seeing a Brad Pitt/Steven Soderbergh baseball film.

Will Terminator 5 ‘be back’ at Warner Bros?

Liam — Thu, 14 May 2009 16:57:01 +0000

Terminator Salvation will be released later this month by Warner Bros in the US and Sony overseas, however some studio drama may occur regarding who will finance and distribute Terminator 5, which is currently in development.

From Variety:

MGM has a 30-day right of first refusal to finance and distribute the fifth “Terminator” film, a right earned through the settlement of a lawsuit between the studio and Halcyon partners Victor Kubicek and Derek Anderson. According to sources, MGM has every intention of making a serious play for the franchise, potentially trumping Warner Bros., which is distributing “Terminator Salvation” in domestic territories, and Sony, which is releasing the film overseas.
The distribution drama promises to be a real cliffhanger that will begin once Halcyon delivers its demands to MGM along with a first draft of the screenplay for the fifth “Terminator.”
“Salvation” was a much riskier prospect then than the fifth “Terminator” is now. At the time, MGM made its decision knowing only that franchise linchpin Arnold Schwarzenegger wasn’t returning, and the studio had only an early script by “Terminator 3″ scribes John Brancato and Michael Ferris they developed with “T3″ helmer Jonathan Mostow. That script has changed significantly, with uncredited work done by Jonah Nolan, Paul Haggis, Shawn Ryan and Anthony Zuiker. Though Halcyon hasn’t yet set a writer for the fifth film, the prospects are strong because McG is returning as director, and Christian Bale will reprise as John Connor.
The MGM-Halcyon drama may not play out until a year from now, when Kubicek and Anderson get an early script, but the stakes may well be supremacy for summer 2011 or 2012.

As long as a movie is good I don’t really care which studio is behind it, however you have to feel a bit sorry for Warner Bros (even if they do earn billions). First they had the Watchmen/Fox legal battle and now they could lose a potential franchise they set up.

Watchmen case resolved

Liam — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 11:54:15 +0000

After a long and exciting legal battle 20th Century Fox and Warner. Bros have finally come to a settlement over the rights to Watchmen, and who gets what. Terms of the agreement will not be disclosed, but it is said to involve a sizable cash payment to Fox and a percentage of the film’s box office. Fox will not be a co-distributor on the film, nor will it own a piece of the Watchmen property going forward.

Below is an official statement from both studios:

Warner Bros. and Twentieth Century Fox have resolved their dispute regarding the rights to the upcoming motion picture Watchmen in a confidential settlement. Warner Bros acknowledges that Fox acted in good faith in bringing its claims, which were asserted prior to the start of principal photography. Fox acknowledges that Warner Bros. acted in good faith in defending against those claims Warner Bros. and Fox, like all Watchmen fans, look forward with great anticipation to this film’s March 6 release in theatres.

It looks like we will still be seeing Watchmen on it’s original release date, March 6th!

Watchmen release date decision soon

Liam — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 20:08:55 +0000

If you plan on pre-booking your tickets to see Zack Snyder’s Watchmen I suggest you wait until after the 20th January, as that is when a judge will decide whether it can still keep it’s March release date.

From the Los Angeles Times:

Lawyers for 20th Century Fox and Warner Bros. have agreed to let a federal judge decide whether Warner Bros. will be allowed to release Watchmen on March 6, forgoing a jury trial that could have put the high-profile film’s future into even longer limbo.
In court papers filed Monday with U.S. District Judge Gary A. Feess, attorneys for Fox and Warner Bros. jointly said they would let the judge decide Jan. 20 whether Fox could block the film’s theatrical distribution as Fox has been seeking all along as part of its copyright infringement lawsuit against Warner Bros.

I hope we will still be able to see Watchmen on it’s original release date. If not the film could be delayed for months!

Fox want to delay Watchmen. Riots expected.

Liam — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 22:16:35 +0000

According to The Hollywood Reporter an attorney for 20th Century Fox said the studio will continue to seek an order delaying the release of Watchmen.

U.S. District Court Judge Gary Feess last week agreed with Fox that Warner Bros. had infringed its copyright by developing and shooting the superhero flick, scheduled for release March 6.
Feess said Monday that he plans to hold a trial Jan. 20 to decide remaining issues.

If Watchmen does get delayed there is no doubt that fans will be pissed off. Earlier this year ComicBookMovie got the chance to interview one angry fan, and if I were Fox I would be shaking in my boots!

CBM: What exactly are you planning on doing?
Wyatt: If I get enough support, I would like to go picket Fox Studios and even perhaps the local Wolverine opening night. Aside form that I want to cover up all Fox movie posters with signs that read: Who Watches the Watchmen?
CBM: What would you tell the Fox execs if you could get a meeting with them?
Wyatt: They have no idea who they a f**king with. Watchmen fans are not regular comic fans. We’re f**king crazy. There will be retaliations if they keep this nonsense up. Also I would say that they had there chance and blew it. Stop being assholes and give the people what the want.

20th Century Fox were not the most loved studio to begin with, so this will not help their image one bit (however I doubt they will care). Ideally things will get sorted and Warner Bros. will just have to give Fox a big chunck of money, although I doubt it will be that simple.

Expect more updates on this in the upcoming days/weeks.