Tuesday, 6 April 2010

Hollywood Babble On & On #483: What's A Lionsgate To Do?

Welcome to the show folks...

Carl Icahn's battle of wills with the management of Lionsgate Pictures caused LA Times blogger Patrick Goldstein to ask a question: "Is Lionsgate well run?"

For those too lazy to click the links, I'll give you a little background.


In the past decade Lionsgate went from being a small scale distributor from Vancouver Canada, to an indie powerhouse. It hit it big with low budget horror franchises, to Tyler Perry movies, to Oscar bait like
Crash and Precious.

But all has not been golden. The company tried to "grow" and compete with the major studios, and took a bit of a pasting with some big budget turkeys like
The Spirit and the fizzling, via overkill (pun intended) of their flagship Saw horror franchise. The stock went from a high of $12, to a low of $4.85, and is now lingering around the $6 mark. Enter corporate raider and shareholder activist Carl Icahn. He thinks the management is not doing its job in the field of providing value to their shareholders, and thinks that his 19% should let him get a spot on the board, and the right to buy up the rest of the company at $6 a share.

Now the Lionsgate management, backed by its two biggest shareholders, say that the price is "insulting." However the analysis wing of JP Morgan Chase, who is the company's main banker, says that it's actually a pretty fair price, from the state of the company, and the market.

The management have a lot to be afraid of if Icahn gets his way. Currently there are 4 people at the top of the Lionsgate heap, Chairman/Chief Executive Officer Jon Feltheimer and Vice Chairman Michael Burns, co-chief operating officer Steve Beeks, and Joe Drake as president of Lions Gate's motion picture group. All four are making pretty big money, and perks, while a $600 million debt hangs over its head, its stock languishes, as well as most of their films, aside from a few acquisitions from independent producers, and millions of dollars get spent fighting Icahn instead of making and releasing movies.

So what can Lionsgate do?

Well, I think it's time to look back at one of my past pieces and adapt it and update it for this situation:

1. DON'T DO WHAT THE MAJORS ARE DOING, DO WHAT THEY ARE NOT DOING.

Right now the major studios are all about mega budget fantasy adventures shot in ultra-expensive 3D, mostly because they can charge more for a ticket. This leaves the smaller scale 2D market wide open. Non epic action films, comedies, and that old stand-by horror can be all yours, if you want it.

2. DON'T WASTE MONEY ON MAKING YOUR FILMS.

Keep your budgets tight. These are lean times, and a company like Lionsgate doesn't have the depth of money and resources that the big boys do. So blowing $100 million on a movie is a severe no-no.

3. EMBRACE THE AUDIENCE.

Audiences are flocking to the story-light/effects heavy blockbusters right now because they just aren't happy with a lot of the stories that Hollywood is putting out. Find the stories that the average ticket-buyer wants to see, then give them what they want.

4. AVOID THE BLOCKBUSTER MONEY TRAP.

Chasing big record breaking box office returns is tempting, but that chase is loaded with all sorts of pitfalls. The bigger the production budget, the bigger the marketing budget, and the bigger the risk. For every studio release that breaks records, there are ten that don't, but had to in order to make money. Which is why you need to follow steps 1, 2, and 3.

5. EMBRACE NEW TECHNOLOGY BUT DON'T LET IT HYPNOTIZE YOU.

Digital video technology can save a company millions in production costs. Digital theaters can save millions in distribution costs. 3D productions and conversions COST millions of dollars above and beyond the regular costs. Add the theater owners constant jacking of the prices, audience dissatisfaction with the 3D effect in some of the "converted" movies, and the whole tulip mania air around the whole thing, and it can sink a company rather than float it.

Look for opportunities to save money, not stunts that only increase the risk.

6. FORGET ABOUT THE STAR SYSTEM.

Big stars are on the way out. The proof, Sam Worthington. He's in two of the biggest movies of the year, yet most viewers don't seem to remember him after the show.

No actor is worth a $20 million payday, and 40% of the dollar 1 box-office. No one. Pay them well, and pay them their fair share, but don't go freaking nuts about it.

7. FORGET ABOUT WINNING HOLLYWOOD.

The critics and media personalities that used to guide public tastes are going the way of the dinosaur. Forget them.

8. MAKE PARTNERS & TREAT THEM AS PARTNERS, NOT SUCKERS.

There are a lot of independent producers out there who have the ability to make films, but not the ability to release them on themselves. They don't want to be dependent on the Weinstein Co. as the only one willing to do acquisitions anymore, because they're not in the business of releasing movies anymore.

So find some good indie companies, ones that are efficient, creative, and well organized, and make some partnership deals with them. Then treat them as partners, and not suckers you can jerk around. Treat them right, and soon you will be the first choice of independents.

9. MAKE DECISIONS WITH YOUR BRAIN, NOT YOUR EGO.

Always base decisions on how it will help your company, not whether it will get you an invite to one of the more star studded parties. If you run a successful company, they'll be clamoring for your attention, so forget them.

10. SEEKING AWARDS CAN ONLY LEAD TO SUFFERING.

Films like Crash and Precious are all well and good, especially when they make money and win praise. However, constantly chasing awards aren't going to help your company, because in this day and age, awards don't always mean money in your company's pocket.

I hope that advice helps.

Saturday, 3 April 2010

Saturday Silliness Cinema: Hugh Laurie Sings

Welcome to the show folks...

Time for my usual Saturday feature where I take a break from ranting about pop culture and the biz behind it for a quick little laugh. Today, Hugh "House" Laurie has a song that will solve all the world's problems if only you'd just listen to what he's saying...


Thursday, 1 April 2010

Hello Gentle Readers

Welcome to the show folks...

If you came looking for a fresh blog....


APRIL FOOLS!

Sorry folks, just a bit slow today on news that blows up my kilt with excitement. Gets like that around holiday weekends.

Anyway, tiptoe through the tulips of my archives, and maybe you can figure out the exact moment I jumped the shark. ;)

Wednesday, 31 March 2010

Hollywood Babble On & On #481: Two News Bits

Welcome to the show folks...

HELL NEEDS SNOW-SHOVELS

Because it just froze over after hearing that I'm agreeing with the MPAA on an issue. Apparently the MPAA isn't too keen on Wall Street starting a futures market based on box-office returns, and I agree with them. I've already expressed why I don't care for the idea, so you can just click this link to read them in full but I'll summarize them for those too lazy to click.


1. It's not an investment, it's a bet. An investment is when someone puts their money into the production of a certain good or service, and succeed when that good or service succeeds.

2. You can succeed from the failure of others. Like any form of gambling people will try to cheat at it, especially when you can win by making a certain film lose. I can't name any specific forms of manipulation, but I'm sure those in the know are cooking up all kinds of scams for this market.

3. The tyranny of the analysts will go bug-shit. There is already too much manipulations, spin doctoring, and just plain tomfoolery with box office analysis that is already being given too much weight. It will get exponentially worse with Wall Street getting involved.

MGM GETS ANOTHER REPRIEVE

MGM gets another stay of execution as its lenders and creditors strive to figure out what to do in the face of a low-ball auction, and the underwhelming performance of the overpriced ($50 million) movie Hot Tub Time Machine.

I think the company needs to be completely rebuilt and restructured into something functional and money making, but maybe that's just me.

Tuesday, 30 March 2010

Hollywood Babble On & On #480: Business As Usual

Welcome to the show folks...

Today I have a couple of little stories about independent companies, so away we go...

SINKFILM GETS ITS DAY IN COURT

David Bergstein's Capitol Films/ThinkFilm indie production and distribution mish-mash had a hearing today in bankruptcy court. According to one commenter at Deadline: Hollywood who claimed to be attending the proceedings, one of the lawyers for the creditors called it "the Enron of the Motion Picture Business."

BURN!

And the sad part is that it's so believable.

The really sad part is that too many independent companies end up in court with creditors and management fighting over the table scraps, and a lot of people not getting paid for their work.

I know it's hard to make money as an indie producer, the risk to return ratio is not great, but it doesn't help when producers leave themselves open to the sort of allegations that are currently assailing Senor Bergstein. When you're an independent producer you have to be like Caesar's wife, not only pure, but
appearing to be pure.

Why?

Because the odds are pretty good that everything will go completely to shit when you're an indie producer/distributor. When these things go to shit, you don't want your investors and creditors saying the sort of things in court that could get your pelt nailed to the trophy wall of an ambitious State Attorney General, Assistant US Attorney, or IRS auditor. You want them to say: "Oh well, things didn't work out, but at least I can't accuse you of using company money to cover gambling markers without getting sued for libel."

But alas, it seems to be business as usual in Hollywood for indie producers to act like they're studio execs, and that their companies are their little personal fiefdoms and that they don't owe anything to their investors or creditors. Then comes the acrimony, the allegations, and all sorts of legal crap that end up costing everyone more than either side could want.

ALL THE BETTER TO SIT ON YOU WITH

Kanbar Entertainment the producers of the animated movie Hoodwinked are as mad as a wet hornet on 'roids at the Weinstein Company over the movie's sequel Hoodwinked Too: Hood vs Evil.

Apparently the film was supposed to be released in mid-January, alongside the toy line at Burger King, but in December 2009, the Weinstein Co. announced that the movie was going to be bumped back to February.

February came and went, and still no movie.

Now Kanbar Entertainment has made a petition to the Superior Court to force some form of arbitration with TWC over the non-release.

My question is:

Why is this news?

The Weinstein Co. is more famous for not releasing movies than for releasing them. To them it's business as usual to sit on a movie until at least 2 years past its sell by date, and then dump it in a way that ensures no one, including TWC, makes any real money off of it.

Which brings me to my next question:

Why are they still in business?

They need outside investors to give them money, and indie filmmakers to sell their films to TWC's own peculiar brand of oblivion, and I just have to wonder why. Their reputation has proceeded them, and while no one has accused them of criminality, they have been accused, repeatedly, and passionately, with being just plain bad to do business with.

Everyone who does business with them has walked away saying that the company operates on a blend of bullshit and bullying. And most of them walked away with nothing but ulcers and high blood pressure to show for their troubles.

So I think it would be news to hear a story about someone whose name isn't Quentin Tarantino being happy with doing business with TWC.

That would be news, and not business as usual.

Monday, 29 March 2010

Hollywood Babble On & On #479: Miscellaneous Movie/Media/Money Musings

Welcome to the show folks...

IT WAS NICE WHILE IT LASTED

Movie theater owners are planning to jack up ticket prices to 3D movies around 20% or more. Now remember, 3D ticket prices are already more expensive than regular movie prices, and this will probably ensure that the 3D fad will eventually crash and burn sooner than I originally predicted. Theater owners defend their move saying that they're trying to bring the industry in line with such "affordable" entertainments as Major League Baseball, and Broadway Musicals that require second mortgages, and the sale of either their children or their vital organs, to buy seats capable of seeing any of the action.

It's only a matter of time before the studios and exhibitors start demanding billions from the government to build their stadiums theaters, because they can't fill them, because everyone's at home, watching hi-def TV and/or playing video games, because they simply can't afford to drop major moolah to take the family out on a movie night. In 1948 65% of people went to the movies on a weekly basis, now it's less than 6%, do they really want it to go all the way down to 0%.

CASINO JACK GETS A DISTRIBUTOR

The movie Casino Jack about shady lobbyist Jack Abramoff has landed a distributor. So now moviegoers can ignore it in theaters, instead of just ignoring it at the discount bin at Wal-Mart.

A MOVIE MEA CULPA

Writer J.D. Shapiro has apologized for writing the legendary big budget steaming pile known as Battlefield Earth. He said that he got involved because an article said that the Scientology center in Hollywood was a good place to meet women.

Gee, do you think that someone from Scientology wrote that article?

Anyway, next thing he knew, he was writing one of the stinkiest movies of all time. Now apologies are all well and good, but there's nothing that redeems a writer more, than not writing shit.

Now I hope to get an apology, and quick from...

THE PRODUCERS OF HAVEN...

...because they're still insisting that their SyFy Channel TV show, which is a mish-mash of
Eureka, Warehouse 13, and The X-Files, is based on the Stephen King novella The Colorado Kid.

It isn't.

I know I've said this before, but I just have to make my point, because these hacks won't quit with this bullshit.

Let's look again at the facts:

1.
Haven- A TV show about a plucky female FBI agent investigating paranormal/supernatural themed cases in a small New England town.

2.
The Colorado Kid- A crime novella about two old newspapermen in a small New England town telling the story of an unsolved death to a plucky female journalism intern.

Just having a plucky female
whatever in a small New England town does make it an adaptation.

It's not even in the same genre.

The only thing Stephen King has to do with this show is that he cashed a check. Now I normally wish people all the success in the world, however, I simply must change my policy because of this rather obvious scam, which is why I'm asking, nay,
pleading, my readers to tell everyone they know, by any means necessary that THEY SHOULD NOT WATCH THIS SHOW.

This show
must fail, it must tank, it must crash and burn.

I hate to say this, but it's the only way to stop this sort of bullshit shell game.

And Stephen King, what's up with you, aren't you rich enough now, or did you lose a lot of money on last year's Super Bowl?

FOX & MGM DO CREATESPACE!

Fox, which distributes the home video product for MGM, is going to make some MGM backlist titles available via on-demand publisher Createspace.

I actually think this is a good idea. Not every movie rates the printing of a million copies when simply having them available on-demand could handle their sales admirably with a minimum outlay.

Now I say take it to the next level.

There's a lot of talk in publishing about a machine called the Expresso or something like that. The idea behind it is that they install the machine in stores, if that store doesn't have the book you want, then you punch it up on the machine, and it will print it for you.

Why can't they do that for DVDs?

It should be a quicker, safer, and better quality alternative to online downloading, especially if they make it affordable, and it'll be a good way to unload the studio back-list to the sort of cinephiles who like their movies off the beaten path.

IF YOU WANT TO TALK TO TINA FEY--

--then you better fill out this form in total:
RE: INTERVIEW WITH TINA FEY

The following will serve as an agreement between ____________________ and Tina Fey in regard to their interview for ___________________________ .

Journalist may not use text produced by Tina Fey for any purposes other than what is originally intended without securing the prior written permission of Tina Fey and WKT PR. The obtained quotes may only be used for _______________________.

Journalist may show the completed article as an example of his work, but journalist agrees not to publish any quotes supplied by Tina Fey in any manner without obtaining written consent.

The text may not be used for any merchandising purposes, without prior written permission. Should you fail to strictly comply with the forgoing, our client will have the right to exercise all of his rights and liberties at law and in equity.
There are three possible reasons for rather unusual bit of pre-interview legalese:

1. Tina Fey has run out of material and doesn't want reporters to reveal that she has writers feeding her bon mots via an earpiece.

2. She and her publicists take her and her career way to seriously.

3. She's sick and tired of having her sketches being reported the next day on The View as Sarah Palin quotes.

Sunday, 28 March 2010

Discount Bin Film Club: Scanners!

Welcome to the show folks...

The late 70s & early 80s were a strange time in Canadian cinema.


And by strange I mean that Canadian movies were actually getting made. In fact, a lot of Canadian films were getting made. This is because Canada's tax laws had a huge loophole in them for people who invested in Canadian film production.

Now while the loophole got films made, it didn't do much to get those films released. So a lot of movies during the "Hollywood North" era just disappeared, and many of them rightfully so.

Scanners (1980) was not one of them. It was picked up by American distributor Avco/Embassy, and became a modest hit, grossing over $14 million and stood as director David Cronenberg's biggest grosser until The Fly a few years later.

Now I just picked it up for $3.99 Canadian from a discount bin.

So here we go with the review.

The film's story is fairly convoluted. Cameron Vale (Stephen Lack) is a "scanner," one of a community of about 200 or more people cursed with telepathic powers. I say cursed because most scanners are social misfits, misdiagnosed as schizophrenic, unable to function normally in society, and Vale himself is homeless. He is brought in by Dr. Paul Ruth (Patrick McGoohan) to work for Consec, an international security conglomerate who are studying scanners. His mission to find Daryl Revok (Michael Ironside) a rogue scanner with a hidden agenda, and a penchant for making heads explode, helped by lady scanner Kim Obrist (Jennifer O'Neill).

The investigation leads to Revok's real plan, some dark truths about the origins of the scanners, and a brain on brain battle royal between Vale and Revok for the fate of the world.

Now I must take a moment to say that the film isn't perfect.


The budget, although the biggest Cronenberg
had worked with until then, was comparatively small. Another complication came from qualifying for the tax loophole, which left Cronenberg only 2 weeks of pre-production, including writing the script. This left Cronenberg doing rewrites every-day from 4-7 AM, going directly to shooting, and scrambling for locations.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.


Where it works oddly enough is in the location work. The film was shot in winter, making the world of the film cold, hard, and just plain uncomfortable. The chief locations are either institutional slabs of grim concrete, or decaying backstreet locales, with peeling paint and dotted with rust. It was also shot when the urban sprawl that created acres of cookie-cutter suburbs were just beginning. This creates the imagery of massive corporate office towers literally poking up out of the middle of nowhere, surrounded by empty fields. Creating a strange sense of dislocation.

The special effects, especially the exploding head scene, are still pretty good looking even in this age of mega-million FX budgets, and the fact that they were done so quickly and cheaply, makes them even more impressive.

Most of the cast is also game to the challenge, trying their best, with Michael Ironside's Revok, and Patrick McGoohan's Dr. Paul Ruth, even though in his final scenes there are a few false notes*, which seems mostly from the sheer speed they needed to complete the film.

The weak points come from the fact that the film was rushed, and Cronenberg's tendency early in his career to cut his movies down to the bone. It's easy to get lost, there are some parts that could use explanations, and the ending, though I figured it out when I first saw the (somewhat) edited for TV version at the age of 12, does strike a lot of people as vague and frustrating.

Another weak point are the two leads. Jennifer O'Neill got the "star" billing, because she was the world's top model at the time, and that helped seal the film's distribution deal. Yet it's hard that a woman so carefully put together, could be the psychological misfit the character is supposed to be. Stephen Lack as Cameron Vale, even by his own admission, isn't all that much of an actor, though his pale blue eyes do have an extremely expressive quality, especially in the "scanner fights." (He soon quit acting outside of a few cameos, and had a very successful career as a painter/sculptor.) But his manner of speaking seems a little too detached, and seems dubbed, even when he's been recorded live.

Now onto the MGM/UA DVD. It's a bare bones affair, with just the trailer, as the only extra. But the picture quality is about the best has ever looked to me, after years of sub-standard prints on TV and VHS.

All in all, it's a very entertaining artifact of a young filmmaker finding his voice, and a must for fans of low budget science-fiction and horror that tries to go beyond the usual laser guns and gore. While I may not have shelled out the "full price" for it, it was worth more than what I paid for it.

I'll be back to ranting and raving about the business of popular culture on Monday. See you then.

______________________
*The false notes come from a conversation Dr. Paul Ruth has with Cameron Vale even though they're in different rooms. Cronenberg didn't quite make the connection between the two characters until the very end of the scene, which mostly looked like Ruth was talking to himself.

Saturday, 27 March 2010

Saturday Silliness Cinema: Breakdowns of 1942!

Welcome to the show folks...

Time for me to take my usual Saturday break from ranting about business, and have a little laugh.

Today, more classic bloopers from classic Warner Bros. movies of 1942. People over 30 should be on the lookout for a certain future President of the USA, people under 30 probably learn some history.

Enjoy.




Thursday, 25 March 2010

Hollywood Babble On & On #478: The Battle of Lionsgate!

Welcome to the show folks...

Corporate raider/shareholder activist Carl Icahn is now in a full blown war of the words with Lionsgate's management and board of directors.

Here's a little video from CNBC where Carl Icahn makes his points (h/t Nikki Finke):













Now some of you won't be patient enough to watch a CNBC business news video, so I'll give you some of Icahn's major points.

1. If Icahn's purchases of Lionsgate stock goes above a certain percentage, the interest rates and repayment schedules on Lionsgate's $600 million debt goes completely bugshit due to some complex covenants in their loan agreements.

2. Icahn calls these covenants a "poison pill" because the sole reason for their existence is to force anyone who wants to buy or sell large amounts of Lionsgate stock to get the approval of the board. This prevents anyone whose name rhymes with Karl Icon from making a serious takeover play without their approval, which isn't coming, because it could cost those same board members and executives their jobs. He has a case, there's no rational financial reason for these debt covenants other than to scotch a takeover.

3. Icahn isn't happy with Lionsgate making a play for MGM, which they recently pulled out of. His case is that it's more ego driven than money driven, because it would require the adding of possibly a billion dollars plus in debt to the already debt ridden company. Icahn's case is to get Lionsgate's own house in order before trying to add on anything else. (Note: Icahn also is buying up a shit-load of MGM debt, which if the MGM auction goes bust, puts him in a position to make a play for at least a piece of that troubled studio himself.)

4. Icahn isn't happy with Lionsgate's movie choices. They have been moving away from distributing independent films, and producing more of their own, bigger productions. The problem is that a lot of those productions lost a lot of money, and isn't bringing in the value that Icahn thinks the shareholders deserve. Icahn's case is to go back to what they did best, and to do it with modest budgets, and not play at being a big studio.

5. The Lionsgate management/board faction claims that Icahn's offer of $6 a share is insulting, and nowhere near the real value of the company. Icahn's argument is that if it's too low, then no Lionsgate shareholders will sell share's to him. Though some reports say that he's willing to go up to $7.50 a share.

Now while I normally revel when rich men fight, I do have a concern that all this fighting will only hurt the Lionsgate staff in the end. I think some sort of accommodation must be made between them, and then maybe they can work together to make Lionsgate a real success story.