MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Posted Wednesday, January 10th, 2007 - 9 Comments »
Be Sociable, Share!

Look To The Future On Berman

Many are enjoying the opportunity to dance on Gail Berman’s recently dug grave, citing the past as the reason for her exit. But the biggest problem with her tenure has not been her personality or her color coded production execs, but her basic lack of productivity… she wasn’t making movies.
It’s simple math. Paramount, Berman’s Paramount, has 5 movies on the schedule for 2007, including one 2006 holdover that continues to float on the schedule. DreamWorks has 7 films on the 2007 schedule.
Even Paramount Vantage has as many films – before any upcoming acquisitions – as Big Par.
And the current slate of films sure to be produced for 2008? Iron Man, controlled by Avi Arad. Indiana Jones, controlled by Steven Spielberg. An Italian Job sequel, a franchise on which she didn’t initiate the first film. The Spiderwick Chronicles is really the only “Gail Berman” movie.
Studios are and always have been like sharks… they need to keep moving because good and bad will always happen, but the promise of what is coming is what keeps studio heads alive.
Amy Pascal had a nightmare 2005. She switched marketing heads, got great openings from some horrible films, did great with her blockbuster titles, and all of a sudden she is the most secure (along with Rothman/Gianopulos) studio head in town with the studio’s best year ever and Spider-Man 3 on the way.
Ya gotta make frickin’ movies. You can be the devil walking and get away with it if you do. You can even make some super screw ups the turn the whole boat upside down and survive. Just keep thinkin’ about tomorrow…
Gail Berman died because regardless of all her other issues, she made ultimate mistake… she gave her bosses nothing to look forward to.
(And now, watch Stardust and Spiderwick be massive smash hits.)

Be Sociable, Share!

9 Comments »

9 Responses to “Look To The Future On Berman”

  1. jeffmcm says:
    January 10, 2007 at 12:30 pm

    Purely for my edification, what does this mean: ‘her color coded production execs’ ? Did she have a different color dude for ever genre?

  2. RP says:
    January 10, 2007 at 12:51 pm

    Comment: Purely for my edification, what does this mean: ‘her color coded production execs’ ? Did she have a different color dude for ever genre? >>>
    See the second half of today’s L.A. Times Scriptland column:
    http://tinyurl.com/y9oysl

  3. jeffmcm says:
    January 10, 2007 at 12:59 pm

    Thank you.

  4. fnt says:
    January 10, 2007 at 7:36 pm

    I always found it obnoxious that she took credit for the box office success of JACKASS 2 and NACHO LIBRE — two projects begun before she was even hired. Particularly in light of the fact that she actively tried to kill NACHO LIBRE.
    When a Times article came out with her taking credit, it was apparently an object of great amusement on the NACHO LIBRE set.
    The fact she’s not getting a production deal upon exit (which seems to be writ-in-stone standard) is illuminating.

  5. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:
    January 10, 2007 at 11:20 pm

    I hope Stardust is a success for no other reason than to give Michelle Pfeiffer the feeling that she should keep making movies and she should keep trying to win that Oscar. Just like I hope Hairspray and I Could Never Be Your Woman are successful for the very same reason. The Pfeiff needs to be in more than one movie every five years, thank you.

  6. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:
    January 11, 2007 at 4:49 am

    Peter O’Toole is on Letterman right now and he’s… interesting. He seems to be having fun at least…?

  7. Dr Wally says:
    January 11, 2007 at 12:04 pm

    I don’t know for sure that the Indy 4 juggernaut is definitely happening at Paramount, is it? It’s Lucasfilm’s gig and they can use whoever they want for distribution. Remember, this is the same deal Lucas had with the Star Wars prequels. He was under no obligation to use Fox to distribute the movies and it’s the same thing here. Indy 4, cracks about Ford’s age notwithstanding, will be the most eagerly awaited movie event since LOTR, maybe even The Phantom Menace, and i think ultimately it will end up being a Dreamworks / Paramount split for distribution.

  8. Wrecktum says:
    January 11, 2007 at 2:12 pm

    I agree that makes sense. Paramount domestic and Dreamworks int’l.

  9. Cadavra says:
    January 12, 2007 at 12:17 am

    Didn’t Pfeiffer take time off to raise her kids?

The Hot Blog

Comments Most Recent Archives

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