October
7Is It Spielberg’s Win or Spielberg’s Folly?
So the world’s wealthiest filmmaker has now closed his peace treaty with Paramount, and some in Hollywood are asking: Did Steven Spielberg really need all this anxiety?The surprise accord reached last weekend between DreamWorks and Paramount ended months of angry rhetoric. The settlement came as a surprise because the gap between the companies seemed to be expanding, not shrinking.
In the end, however, the deal turned out to be that rarity in Hollywood: A win for both sides. Spielberg wins ownership of several key projects which will enable the “new DreamWorks” to hit the ground running rather than going through the ordeal of developing from scratch.
For its part, Paramount sheds as much as $50 million in overhead, but can still opt to co-finance and distribute some of Spielberg’s major projects. Unlike other majors, Paramount does not have a cluster of co-financing entities at its command.
But even as DreamWorks celebrates its new autonomy, it is not the DreamWorks that was originally envisioned by Spielberg – a diversified entertainment company with its own vast studio facility. What the filmmaker now presides over more closely resembles his original Amblin Company, which was tucked into the back lot at Universal (and still is).
The difference, of course, is that DreamWorks can now finance (or co-finance) its own projects with its Indian partners (Reliance Media) and distribute through Universal or Paramount or both.
Jeffery Katzenberg’s DreamWorks animation still has its own deal through Paramount and David Geffen, the third partner, intends to retire from the film business. It will be up to Stacey Snider to run the DreamWorks’ slate under Spielberg’s direction – all of which is ironic if a link with Universal is struck, because that’s where she worked for several years to begin with.
Starting this week, Snider must now sort through the DreamWorks staff and evaluate its production deals to decide who comes to the new venture. That will entail a great deal of angst, legal fees and human resources detail.On the surface, the principals insist they’re delighted with the outcome. But one has to wonder whether Spielberg awakened on many nights to ask himself, “Do I really need all these meetings and legal fees?” How many movies could he have shot or developed during those many hours of deliberation?
When you’re the world’s wealthiest filmmaker, you have to ask yourself those questions.
Subscribe to Peter Bart's Blog Feed
Here''s a bigger money maker for Hollywood: Anti-faith-based films. The Saw series, Hostel, Friday the 13th...all of these have delivered consistently for Hollywood. Not just every five years like the "faith" films. I would love to see a horror film from Spielberg (and I''m not counting "Always").
Posted by: Alfred E. Gore | 10/13/2008 2:13:37 PM
Hopefully he gets some new films right, or at least closer to his earlier vision
Posted by: meatgrinderdottv | 10/10/2008 3:57:21 PM
your are one of the greatest film makers of all time....you dont need to be a mogul and make the likes of indy 1v.you are wealthy beyond belief.i know you were talked into this by the card counter nathan katzenberg detroit a soulness shyster go back to being the great man you are
Posted by: elder statesman | 10/10/2008 2:41:05 PM
The bigger question is why Hollywood isn't jumping on the big fish: Faith-based films.
'The Passion' made over $1 billion alone
And a small Christian film, 'Fireproof', made for $500,000 has cleared $13 million for Samuel Goldwyn
Posted by: Bigger Question | 10/10/2008 12:55:01 PM
OH yeah...my friend!Thanks! i hope write better. Poquito a poquito. But the future is JUNOT DIAZ.
Posted by: Alejandro | 10/10/2008 10:33:21 AM
Google tools gives a better translation, still somethings lost.
Spielberg seems to me every year or more to De Mille. For good and bad. Year ade that increasingly older and more expensive in their pelÃculas. They shall be devoted to lead and be less "JAWS" money man. A pelÃ-year estimates to o. Quality. And do not be so corny and "ABE" because it''''s 2009 anniversary. The past is the future.
Posted by: Lurker | 10/9/2008 11:24:06 AM
Babel Fish translation:
For my Spielberg año but like Of Mille is looked each. For good and the bad thing. Old and but more and more expensive Añade that in his pelÃculas. DeberÃa to dedicate itself to less direct and to be " JAWS" money man. PelÃcula to año. Of quality. And not to be so pretentious and to do " ABE" because anniversary is 2009. The past he is fututo.
Posted by: 2foreign4U | 10/8/2008 10:22:14 PM
I'm not sure there is a Sophie's choice between deciding with Orci stays and developing new projects.
Posted by: matthew Fogel | 10/8/2008 2:04:30 PM
Para mi Spielberg se parece cada año mas a De Mille. Para lo bueno y lo malo. Añade que cada vez mas viejo y mas caro en sus pelÃculas. DeberÃa de dedicarse a dirigir y ser menos "JAWS" money man. Un pelÃcula al año. De calidad. Y no ser tan cursi y hacer "ABE" porque es 2009 aniversario. EL pasado es el fututo.
Posted by: Alejandro | 10/8/2008 9:38:41 AM