MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Miramax: Round 13

So… if Disney sells off Miramax for less than the $1 million per film avg price tag that already represents film library values going into the toilet, they are just being silly. The sale is not about economics… it is an old-fashioned ego play to clear the decks of the company’s past.
It’s pathetic that we are now at a point where $700 million for 700 films, including big grossers and Oscar winners, is considered the high number. This is not Rich Ross’ fault. But the number is so low that a company as deep-pocketed as Disney should not dumping a commodity that could have future upside… including a sale at a later date.
if Harvey Weisntein can convince Ron Burkle that buying the Miramax library can pay for itself over 5 years or 7 years or whatever under Harvey’s guidance, Disney is, essentially, giving away the library.
More importantly, Disney has not been a company that produces/distributes a ton of movies each year. Since they acquired Miramax, the big studio – including Touchstone and Hollywood Pictures – has made/distributed about the same number of films as Miramax/Disney-Dimension… just over 300 each.
Let’s forget the hope that there will be some DVDesque cash cow distribution system showing up to make each title worth a lot more again. How about if Disney decides – as I project all studios will – go into packaging their entire content play, current and historic, as a subscription offering on a variety of levels. No doubt, the pitch would be kid-centric. But the Miramax library could fill its own channel, playing each title only 6 times a year or less. Doesn’t that channel make the purchase more attractive for buyers over 12? Add in the parade of Touchstone/Hollywood titles that are really for adults. There has to be a way to fill out the Marvel Channel, no?
Bottom Line: This sale or non-sale will not be the key to Disney’s future. It could be successful for The Weinsteins… or it could be the last nail in their glass coffin. The Goreses will just try to turn it over as soon as there is a 20% premium to be made. And Bergstein… really… are you kidding me? That mook owes ME tens of thousands, much less the tens of millions he owes others… this is who Disney empowers? No.
There is one more option… sell it to the Weinsteins and Burkle for $500m, retaining 40% of the rights, but with an agreement not to take any of the revenue for 5 years and to be willing to sell the stake for, say, $500m more at any time. Harvey gets five years to milk the library and to re-build. If things go bad, Disney still has something of potential long-range value. And Diisney isn’t just doing something to do something.
But even at $700m, the number is too low for Disney. It will never destroy Disney. But it could sting mightily… unless library values keep dropping… which would be horrifying. Ironically, Disney is the studio most likely to devalue libraries by rushing to window-busting. Ah, the circle of life!

Be Sociable, Share!

One Response to “Miramax: Round 13”

  1. anghus says:

    you know what would be fitting?
    disney should tell bob and harv to ‘fuck off’, and bury miramax.
    it would be great karma for all the filmmakers they buried over the years.
    is anyone rooting for these clowns?

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