October 15, 2004
Talkin' Heads in Quirky Specs: The Launch of "Variety Vision"
If you've been to Varitey lately, you probably noticed the streamlined layout. But did you happen to click on the new "Variety Vision" clips? This might eventually turn out to be an interesting concept, but geez guys, can you spend a few bucks and spring for a set? We know the burnt umber Variety newsroom lends some authenticity, but come on - this is some public access quality work here. (or maybe not - see this NYC-based public access film news show "Indieville"). Pull something posh together guys - just make sure it doesn't clash with Snyder's swanky eyewear...
In all seriousness, if they do up the production value and plop in some more bits of EPK eye candy, people might actually watch 'em.
While they're at it, they should partner up with the good folks at Akimbo so I can watch these clips on my TV as soon as the service launches.
The Screening Q&A covering the Huckabee's flick is great -- but if you watch Saturday Morning Shootout, you already know how good Peter Bart can be. Maybe he can let his team use the coffee house set...
If you want to see Shootout, you can watch the entire episode from last week right here.
Variety.com - Entertainment news, movie reviews, industry events - Variety Magazine Online
October 13, 2004
Rumored Paramount Indie Division going Head-on With Fox Searchlight?
I would hate to be Ruth Vitale or David Dinerstein these days with all of the talk about an emerging, bulked-up "Indie Paramount Division." At any rate, The Los Angeles Times has an informative article that delves headlong into conjectureville, and along the way, drops us with some interesting marketing points. Specifically, it lets us know why the forlorn Paramount Classics label has floundered:
Paramount Classics has been stymied by an outmoded, low-risk, art-house business model. Set up by Dolgen in 1998 after he came to Paramount from Sony, the company was inspired by Sony Classics, which has consistently turned a profit by buying classy but low-risk foreign films and documentaries. However, Dolgen emphasized the no-risk part of the equation so much that Paramount Classics never had enough money to bid on top films or market them successfully. While other companies made their own movies, Paramount was limited until recently to acquisitions, preventing it from scooping up a sought-after script or building a relationship with a gifted young filmmaker.
We also get an explaination why Fox Searchlight is Miramax's heir apparent from Tom Freston, co-president of Viacom:
"Once you get past the tent-pole movies like "Spider-Man' or 'Shrek,' the indie film companies are the most financially viable part of the business today," he explained. "A specialty company is a place where you can make a profit on pictures at a relatively low risk, market movies more cheaply and build talent relationships that provide access to great material and bring new creative energy to the parent studio."
Later in the article, Freston goes on to draw parallels between the current crop of indie filmmakers and the Garage Bands of the past. But how "garage" are the major studios willing to get?
I'm not so sure. But I do know this: we're probably going to see the film business version of Sub-Pop in the very near future. The only question is wether or not it will be a studio's satellite...
Related Link:
A new indie film division could pump up Paramount
July 19, 2004
A closer look at the MGM/Sony/Time Warner Triangle
According to Variety, the negotiations between MGM and Sony have hit a roadblock. The much simpler and tax-efficient Time Warner offer could win out.
With all of the buzz going on about this lately, I thought it would be interesting to backtrack and provide a "Q&A" of sorts. After all, understanding the financial value of a film property/library and the implications when a company purchases one can help put individual title marketing into perspective.
Continue reading "A closer look at the MGM/Sony/Time Warner Triangle"
June 07, 2004
MPAA, NATO Want to Quash GKC's New "R-Card"
Looks like the MPAA and The National Association of Theater Owners fear that GKC's R-card could spur congressional action over movie ratings. Given the high sensitivity in the "post-nipple" era, I can understand the industry's fear over losing their right to self-regulation, but I still admire the forward thinking behind the card. Is it just a case of bad timing on GKC's part?
Here's what Jack Valenti had to say:
"All R-rated films are not alike. It is the parents' responsibility to make specific judgments about R films -- and wrong to give a blanket endorsement to all," said Jack Valenti, president and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America, which issues movie ratings.
With only 268 screens, GKC doesn't have the clout to fight it out with the MPAA alone. However, the company does have strong family ties with the Kerasotes chain, and combined they have nearly 900 screens in the Midwest region. Look for another "forward thinking" chain to copy the idea -- I bet Mark Cuban has the gumption to try something like this with Landmark. If one of the big boys (Regal, AMC, Loews) gives it a run, the MPAA's beef is over.
If 700 parents have already signed up for the card in the pilot phase in a region supposedly saturated with "family values," GKC looks to have a hit of their own on their hands. All this free publicity sure can't hurt -- especially with the teens, who are now probably clamoring for their own cards...
CNN.com - Younger teens getting R-rated movie passes - Jun 7, 2004
April 20, 2004
Is it 1999 in Hollywood?
Around five years ago, I remember a buddy of mine telling me about this thing called "Napster."
"You can download any song you want for free," he told me. I gave it shot on my dial-up connection, and while it was painfully slow, the novelty of free, on-demand music was addictive.
Now I don't download much of anything these days, but I have to admit -- when I moved up to broadband in early 2000, it was an MP3 feeding frenzy. A typical song download took a minute instead of an hour. Practically any obscure song that came to mind was at hand in just a few moments. I think at Napster's high point, there were more people swapping songs at any one time than watching all three of the networks combined.
And at that point, no marketing, however clever or skillful, was going to get me (or millions of others, for that matter) to shell out money for a CD.
So is it 1999 for Hollywood? 2 out of 5 users have fast connections now. According to an article in today's Financial Times:
Ipsos-Insight, a worldwide marketing research firm, reported Tuesday one out of five Internet users who swap files have downloaded a full-length motion picture. Almost 10 percent did so within 30 days of the research product conducted by Matt Kleinschmitt, senior analyst.
Some people may argue that Hollywood has more revenue streams than the music biz or quote box office figures as proof of the industry's financial health.
But in reality, the theatrical release is more of a marketing effort for ancillary revenues, and is rarely a profit center in and of itself. And when you combine actual marketing expenditures with production budgets, most films are still bleeding red when they appear at the local video store.
Accounting tricks aside, if people stop buying DVDs, it'll be quite the blow to the movie industry's kneecaps.
We'll take a look later this week at how the Film Industry is dealing with the issue.
Related Link:
Investor's Business Daily: Breaking News
April 07, 2004
Online Voting Opens for the 33rd Annual Key Art Awards
Online voting is now available for the 33rd annual Key Art Awards. According to their site, the Key Art Awards are:
...the only international competition honoring the professionals who create movie advertising, including theatrical trailers, posters, TV commercials, Internet ads and more. It's the work of these individuals that often determines a film's box office success and chances for Oscar consideration. The Key Art Awards ceremony has become a cornerstone event in the movie marketing community, annually attracting a "who's who"of motion picture executives and creative professionals from every corner of the industry.
The term "key art" is industry jargon for the main pieces of collateral supporting a movie's release -- posters, stills, etc.
I've heard of the awards before, but I never knew about the online voting. This looks like the second year that they're doing it.
Here's a summary of who I voted for:
Best Poster, Comedy: 'Lost in Translation'
Best Poster, Drama: 'American Splendor'
Best Poster, Action/Adventure: 'Pirates of the Caribbean'
Best Trailer, Comedy: 'Lost in Translation'
Best Trailer, Drama: 'Mystic River'
Best Trailer, Action/Adventure: 'Kill Bill Volume I'
I thought the 'Lost in Translation' campaign was brilliant, but perhaps it just struck a chord with my demo...
Best Website: Identity
Related Link:
The Hollywood Reporter.com: Key Art
April 06, 2004
Pixar amassing cash for an acquisition?
With Pixar freeing itself from the Disney corral, there's been a lot of speculation about who their next distribution and marketing partner will be.
But the real question may not be "who" but rather "how long." An analysis of Pixar noted that the company has a goal of amassing over one billion in cash by 2006:
What is 54%-owner Steve Jobs really after, besides the $52 per year Pixar pays him? Of course, having all five of your films among the 11 highest-grossing animated films of all time isn't shabby. But in the last conference call, Jobs -- who, incidentally, has never sold a share of Pixar -- indicated that the company hoped to have up to $1 billion cash stockpiled by 2006. Why? To ride out a string of flops? At $100 million to $150 million per film, that's a lot of flops. Dividends? Maybe, but why not start a little one now?
I'm guessing that at a minimum, Jobs plans to put out more than the current one movie per year, but given that his conference call comments hint at a preference for quality over quantity, it's questionable how far down that line he and Pixar's creative talent are willing to go. And it's not all up to him, either.
Pixar's market, at least as it stands now, might not be willing to absorb more than one or two films per year. In other words, he probably has something up his sleeve. Maybe it's an acquisition; maybe it's a significant expansion of Pixar's offering; maybe it's just a few extra films and a buyback or dividend. Whatever is coming, I'd say this lottery ticket has some decent odds.
With Apple's successful foray into music, it would make sense that the next move would be an acquisition.
Who Pixar partners with will speak a lot about that.
Related Link:
Fool.com: Funding Nemo [Commentary] April 6, 2004
