MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Battsek Out At Miramax

Daniel was well liked and rather effective.
I don’t know. The New Disney is really, really not going to be The Old Disney… not even The New Old Disney.
It as though Bob Iger, who for years has seemed to be playing a very, very smart game of chess in reestablishing what Eisner and Katzenberg had built after they had allowed it to overmature and ripen into too many personal vendettas and self-reflections, has suddenly gotten God and is going to try to turn Disney 3.0 into a hard-driving future-focused leader instead of being a solid, sleepy, history-considering village.
There is something honorable about Iger and his new right-hand, Rich Ross, knowing their intent well enough to not bother keeping Miramax alive as anything much more than a non-theatrical brand. (That’s what Battsek’s exit suggests… and it also suggests more to come.) But there is also something a little bit scary about a company like this galloping so intensely and almost without any restraint towards an uncertain future.
I’ve been watching the well-curated, tremendous 4-disc Blu-ray packages of Up and Monsters. Inc. and it struck me yesterday just how different the Disney brand may be soon… how many more icons will be placed in the background of The Castle in years to come.
The only good thing about this news is that it will create an even greater vacuum in the art house distribution world… and no matter how tough things are, nature abhors a vacuum. But as small as a Miramax business should be at a company like D3.0, not having one is just not smart. The future of the film business is the ability to play to ALL fields, as the revenues for all filmed entertainment gets smaller. Studios that throw away $10 million a year here and $10 million a year there are setting themselves up for dangerous waters ahead. Take a look at the history of the 1960s in the business. Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.

Be Sociable, Share!

6 Responses to “Battsek Out At Miramax”

  1. Wrecktum says:

    I think that Iger and Ross know (or will soon know) that there needs to be a place for indie-style films at the studio. It’s crucial for building and maintaining talent and exhibition relations, awards season, and frankly, it’s good business.
    That said, I’ve never thought that Battsek was as effective as you’ve always stated. His recent production track record is spotty and acquisitions for the past few years have been uninspired. There

  2. marychan says:

    Based on what I read from LA Times and Anne Thompson’s blog, Miramax also overspent on the marketing of several films…. just like some other studios

  3. SJRubinstein says:

    I think the biggest indications for the new Disney were the massive and ongoing layoffs at Disney Interactive Group and the problems leading up to the Disney XD launch. Turns out, if you lay everybody off, even your website infrastructure can take a hit.
    That said, the fact that Disney is actually making a $20 million live-action film – “You Again” with Kristen Bell – is totally a move in the right direction.

  4. jeffmcm says:

    “as the revenues for all filmed entertainment gets smaller”
    Maybe I’ve been distracted and haven’t been on top of this discussion, but can somebody elaborate on this subject? Is DP saying that the entire film industry is in the beginning stages of a massive contraction?

  5. martin says:

    This sucks, my girlfriend caught me cheating on her with my wife. What do I do?

  6. doug r says:

    ^Talk them into a 3-way?

The Hot Blog

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