MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

The Urge To Merge

Sony Pictures Entertainment, whose two divisions Columbia and Tri-Star have long been referred to simply as Sony in this column, are devolving into one studio — Columbia Pictures. This puts the studio in line with Warner Bros., a division of Time-Warner Co., 20th Century Fox, a division of News Corp., Universal, a division of Seagrams, and Paramount, a division of Viacom. Only Disney stands as the parent company of their mega-corp. The spin on the “merger” is that the move will boost film production. The reality is there is no value to branding two names under one corporate parent, unless like Disney, there is a significant difference in the labels. (Touchstone for adults, Disney for kids, Hollywood for big budget films.) In Sony’s case, Columbia stood as the venerable studio, making smaller quality films (using 1991 as an example — Boyz N the Hood, The Fisher King and The Prince of Tides) while the Tri-Star arm was making the big movies (1991’s Hook and the pick-up of Carolco Pictures’ Terminator 2). But with both studios making both kinds of films last year (Which company did Men in Black and which did Starship Troopers? Which label released The Devil’s Own, Booty Call and Anaconda?), the process of branding two names, while trying to coordinate release dates, marketing and competition for product between the two sets of studios execs finally became silly.
A FAREWELL TO TRI-STAR: The first new studio to be considered a major right out of the box was created a little over 15 years ago by the troika of Columbia Pictures, Home Box Office and CBS-TV. Tri-Star, get it? The deal made a permanent infrastructure for what was standard operating procedure. Make the movie, sell it to cable, sell it to TV. For cable king HBO, it was a way of solidifying their position by assuring exclusivity, kind of like Fox TV overpaying for the NFL to legitimize its status as a network. (Ironically, Sony is now the only studio not to own a cable distribution outlet.) The party started out with a bang in 1984 with the now-classic The Natural. Unfortunately, the box office wasn’t as overwhelming as the Randy Newman score. Neither were numbers for the other Tri-Star products of 1984 — Supergirl, The Muppets Take Manhattan, Birdy, Places in the Heart and Runaway. By 1989, the partners were gone and Sony had complete control of the label. But all was not well, as five studio heads shuffled in and out before current chieftan Chris Lee took the reins 18 months ago for uberboss John Calley. In the end, Tri-Star was a victim of its own success. Not just in putting out hit movies that would probably serve Sony’s ultimate goals better as Columbia brands, but in hiring Lee, who fits Calley’s ideal for a studio chief. Amy Pascal, chief at Columbia, fits the Calley vision too, leaving little difference between the two divisions and uncomfortable inter-squad competition. After 200 films, Tri-Star joins the ranks of RKO, Selznick International and, for all intents and purposes, MGM and United Artists as former majors with names that are part of our cable and video memories alone.
JUST WONDERING: Sony’s retirement of Tri-Star brings up one of the more popular questions in town this week. How long before someone buys the Tri-Star name as the foundation of their own new studio? With no library (at least not one Sony will ever give up), how much is a name worth? My guess is that we’ll know before the millennium.
MORE SONY: The monster that is Godzilla, a Tri-Star Picture, is looking like a monster for exhibitors too. Since Jurassic Park, a 90/10 percent split of opening weekend grosses for mega-movies has become almost standard. But that pro-studio split always included theater overhead, which brought the actual split down to about 70/30. Sony is asking for a flat 80 percent for Godzilla in major markets. And suddenly, the positive buzz Godzilla got at ShoWest is turning. Variety quotes one exhibitor as saying, “It looked campy. We didn’t see the emotional hooks that ID4 had.” I can tell you the emotional hook in the early ID4 footage was made up of the dog jumping out of harm’s way in the tunnel, though the criticism is not completely faulty. I love Matthew Broderick, but he’s not Will Smith and there’s no Jeff Goldblum, Bill Pullman, Judd Hirsch or Harvey Fierstein for audiences to identify with in the footage that’s been shown to date. Sony may be playing its cards too close to the vest as they try to keep the monster under wraps until the May 20 release date. Exhibitors won’t see the completed film until late April and toy manufacturers are already upset that they won’t be allowed to sell any Godzilla toys until the film actually hits theaters.
CONTEST COMING: Tomorrow, the box office contest is sponsored by New Line’s Lost In Space. You may love the film or hate the film, but the stuff will be fun either way, so put on your box office thinking caps now.
READER OF THE DAY: From Erin: “In all of your Postman madness Tuesday, you didn’t mention Larenz Tate for the role of Linc in The Mod Squad? What gives? Personally, I’d rather see Harold Perrineau in the role. Oh well. They signed Omar Epps, the next best thing.”

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon