MCN Blogs
Ray Pride

By Ray Pride Pride@moviecitynews.com

Lions at the Lionsgate: an analyst says yes, Icahn

onoz_omg2.gifA multitude of emails in various inboxes this morning from “Richard Alan Incorporated Founder and CEO Richard A. Dorfman”‘s publicistas: he has strong opinions about investor Carl Icahn tearing down The House of SAW, after acquiring “4.1 million shares of Lions Gate [sic]Entertainment at a cost of just under $42 million. As a result, Icahn now owns a nearly 4% stake in the last remaining major independent film… and distribution company in the United States.” Specific analysis of Lionsgate’s valuation follows before Dorfman’s esteeming of the company’s many titles. his “Film Library For Dummies” explanation is a sturdy basic read, followed by this: “So, what is Lions Gate [sic] worth? … [I]t’s hard to say for sure other than that it’s going to be worth what the highest bidder is willing to pay for it in an arms length transaction. [We can] get some idea of its value based on [the fund controlled by] George Soros… stanley park.jpgone of the savviest investors in the world [acquiring] the DreamWorks library from Paramount for $900 million… [W]ith just 59 titles, it in no way comes close to having the breadth or depth of the 8,000 titles in Lions Gate’s [sicsic] would have to involve an auction to extract maximum value. This should be possible since there are likely to be plenty of potential bidders, including studios, cable operators and private equity players, all of whom could bid alone or… as part of a consortium. I suspect cable operators in particular will be eager to participate in the bidding since the Lions Gate [sic] library is well positioned to serve as the foundation for one or more new cable channels… “I would not be surprised to see Lions Gate [sic] bring $2 billion or more in a sale, which would translate into a stock price potentially in excess of $16 per share… [T]his conclusion is not based on any rigorous financial analysis. Instead, it reflects a common sense approach that takes into consideration the history and dynamics of recent transactions as well as the current state of the motion picture industry.”

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

Movie City Indie

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