A rather stunning 38 minute conversation with Viacom Philippe Dauman, Viacom, Inc. President & CEO, chatting at the Goldman Sachs 2007 Communacopia Conference. You would wonder, through most of the chat, whether Viacom will still be in the business of owning a full service movie studio in the years to come. The focus was almost completely on the ongoing efforts around the company
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"]
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
I personally would just like to be able to say at some point in my life: “We only had about $600 million into the deal.”
They are making the combo-players cheapers at least, but BLU-RAY will win. Paramount needed some extra cash and decided to take it. This is what happened. It would be nice if that guy could say; “Dave; look at our bottom-line. We could use this bonus they are giving us. WE BROKE DAVID! WE BROKE! WE NEED THE MONEY!” That would send the stock price through the roof!
Interesting. Also heartless, chilling and delusional.
In short, a smug rendering of the DreamWorks dream team as devolved into the role of vitamins for an ailing body that takes what it needs and pees out the rest.
Dauman finds sanction in the corporate church of Money as Motivator, more important than marriage, he says, backing up this credo by inflating the price (1-2 billion) while debasing the partnership – and the spirit of partnership.
So tell me, Dreamworks – isn’t that boy in the clouds fishing for finer dreams?
Well, one interesting thing about it, seenmy, is that DreamWorks has a similar attitude.
The billion five has become like a muscular bridge loan, taking the heat off of DreamWorks. They were, indeed, drowning in the debt. The illusion, which Anne Thompson buys in her blog coverage, that DreamWorks success this year was just lucky timing because their development slate had matured is bizarre to me. The idea of it all being on multi-year cycles is sooooo five years ago. DreamWorks bought out the Stiller franchise – and its off-shoots with them – after Stacey landed. Same with Ferrell. And there was always going to be a Transformers partner, no matter what happened to DreamWorks, though I suspect that DW got a bigger piece after joining Par than they would have had they needed Par (or someone else) to take on a bigger part of the funding on paper.
The biggest undiscussed issue at this point is the 900 million float for the DreamWorks library, which is way over value. Something is going to have to happen on that in the next 18 months too, it seems. And someone is going to have to eat a few hundred million.
I don’t actually foresee, as Dauman projects, SKG looking for money for a standalone studio ever again. They learned the lesson that a 2 billion studio is both too big and too small a business in this film economy. If they re-launch, you can be pretty sure they will make a play top buy an already functional studio. And really, wouldn’t the most logical thing be for SKG to buy Paramount from Viacom, lay seriously delivery-driven distribution relationships with the Viacom TV brands into the deal, let those properties go over to Les Moonves, and move sanely into the future?
DP – I like your idea re DreamWorks buying Paramount. Offense over defense. It’s the sort of ballsy move I’d love to see them maneuver in the next 12 months.
With respect to Thompson (she has mine) – I would hope the last thing DreamWorks wants is a “safe harbor” like “Universal or Warners.” It seems to epitomize that definition of insanity – doing the same thing over, hoping for a different result. And after all this, does Spielberg want to end up back at Universal? I hope their aim is higher and their pockets (much) deeper. I also agree that trying (again) to build a studio from scratch would be more insanity.
Re your idea – unfortunately, I can’t imagine Viacom or Redstone going for it – their egos and pockets are too deep. And then there’s the financial pomposity. What price tag would they put on it? How many Paul Allens would it take? How many to really make the break, pay them off and not be cuckolded by the head-splitting, lawyer-enriching negotiations over endless distribution & auxiliary rights, etc?
Seems to boil down to the deal and whether DWorks can still work with Para in any way, or if they need to cut bait. Three possibilities:
– DWorks makes a clean break with Para by leaving, treating the loss of distribution and auxiliary rights, etc, that Para will retain as a sunk cost of a mediocre affair gone bad.
– DWorks makes a clean break with Para by buying them out.
– DWorks remains a company within a company – but increases autonomy by taking over Para (Snider as CEO) while still under the Viacom roof.
The third seems both easy and gutless in its way. Dauman and Redstone pack such a sleazy one-two punch, that I hope DreamWorks gets the hell out of Dodge. I hope they find big backers and a structure that provides them with a truly independent home, where they can keep their artistic & financial freedom, their soul and their sanity. The current deal with Paramount ain’t it.