F-in Wow!
Following up on the Paramount/Viacom shalke-up…
Here is my projection of the future. Philippe Dauman is Redstone
May 19, 2024
The Hot Blog
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
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
Sumner Redstone bypassed Tom Freston and Brad Grey to “fire” Tom Cruise….
Now Tom Freston is out….
Is it a sign for a big “change” in Paramount?
Did Sumner go over Brad’s head? Is that a big deal? Or is this just business as usual?
So what’s the major change in the movie business? Paramount’s slate this last year has been Last Holiday, Failure to Launch, Mission: Impossible 3, Nacho Libre, World Trade Center, Barnyard, and the Dreamworks movies Over the Hedge and She’s the Man. and Paramount Classics’ An Inconvenient Truth, Ask the Dust, and Neil Young: Heart of Gold. There are a couple of good movies in there but by and large, pretty safe and mediocre. So are we going to see a further devaluation of the quality of their slate?
Tom Freston was CEO of Viacom, and he would have outranked Brad Grey, so there was no head-over-going involved here.
Mr. MTV is gone.
Question: was he fired or did he resign (or both)?
There already was a major purge at Paramount last year. Are you expecting another?
Mooves leaving to build a fifth network? Isn’t that what he’s already doing with The CW?
Six months before the two companies remerge? After only one year of the split? Wouldn’t that indecision affect the stock price even worse than keeping the status quo?
I don’t buy it.
Change is the excuse for change.
If the same players make the change, it was a mistake. If new guys are there, you can do almost anything. (see: Disney)
Stockwise… separate companies make no sense. And Moonves surely started squirming as soon as Dauman returned. He is the heir apparent and a much tougher adversary in that regard than Freston was. They have to take some next step to keep Moonves happy… or allow him to squirm.
But Moonves is a proven TV exec with a lot of balls in the air right now. Maintaining CBS’ primetime lead, helping build the CW brand, Katie Couric, digital content distribution, etc, etc. Can Redstone really afford to lose him in the next year?
Is Dauman really the future of a recombined Viacom? I don’t think that’s in the cards.
Well, I agree about Moonves. But Dauman, whose in his 50s, is a business guy, not a showbiz guy. And isn’t that what they really need on top?
Anything keeping Moonves from a higher position of power is a good thing. This likely hedges on how well The CW hits it off.
martin: Did Sumner go over Brad’s head? Is that a big deal?
Yes, even if he is far above Brad in the first place. Last I heard, Brad was planning a nice going away blahblahblah for Tom before the circus came to town.
Of course, I know that many of you who comment here don’t care at all about this story, but make no mistake, the movie business has changed a little today and the longer term significance of this could be very, very significant.
I actually enjoy your perspective on news like this Dave. I hope you continue to post behind-the-scenes topics, including your analysis and possible outcome of such events.
Just don’t turn into Defamer, m’kay?
well is the ‘recombined’ Viacom going to stay that way? WIll there be a separate fiefdom for Dauman and a separate fiefdom for Moonves in an insidious future marriage deal of CBS and NBC parentage?
[Just kidding. but there are many trustbusting possibilities esp if the low TV ratings continue of *certain* major network owning companies…but maybe the fifth network option Dave mentions is likely]
Redstone has lost his “Master of the Universe” creed and desperately wants it back.The main problem is he built his empire on a house of cards that has begun to crumble. The stock split was a wall street ploy that has failed; only exposeing his problems more fully. I envision 2 possibilities.
1) Redstone has lost his marbles and any day now will utter the word “ROSEBUD” then drop dead.
2) Redstone still has his shit together and there really is a master plan. Paramount Studios will be the first major to completely get out of the movie “MAKING” business; but will remain a distribitor. The new business model will be: studio will tell producer ” If you deliver ‘X’ picture by ‘Y’ date; we will buy it for ‘$Z’.” (Hello Tom Cruise) Why? 1) Eliminates all risk in production and 2) eliminates envolvment with all unions and guilds. “You want points? Don’t talk to us; talk to the producer.” Agents are going to be crushed in this new world.
Everyone here’s really smart —
including jmcm — so glad he didn’t say “I don’t understand and DP’s writing’s less than clear, let me edit you.” God, we had a beautiful weekend here, sorry all you east coasters.
I think it’s time to bring Robert Evans back into the picture in a big way over at Viacom. That’s the kick in the ass they all need.
DP, are you saying that you think MySpace is only going to be a short-term success, or that it simply isn’t as valuable as it’s being made out to be?
I think the Myspace failure is really the failure of MTV online.
Myspace is falling through the cracks because it’s not content driven. As many add-ons or gimmicks they have on the site, ultimately it’s still just a collection of cheesy personal webpages. And as narcissistic as we are, we still want content with some authorial/editorial standards, whereas myspace is essentially a free-for-all.
Good point. The fact that MTV Online is not a major presence or go-to site for the youth demo shows blatantly how traditional media still doesn’t understand the Internet or its trends.