MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Rebranding The Miramax Sale

It’s one of those great moments… a reason why Hollywood can be happy that two aggressive self-promoters, trying to wrest control of the old territory of The Trades from each other, are taking advice from opposite teams on the same story. It creates some beautiful transparency.
On one side is Sharon Waxman, who is on the “Disney is selling Miramax to known thief Ron Bergstein” tack. Her EXCLUSIVE from Monday is headlined, “Bergstein Nears Miramax Purchase from Disney” and offers, “Tutor and two other unidentified equity partners.”
Cut to today and Nikki Finke’s EXCLUSIVE, “Former Disney CFO Richard Nanula Now Leading Ron Tutor’s Miramax Negotiations; “Bullet Train” Deal Could Close In A Week; Disney May Get Its $700M Asking Price
And a previously unidentified equity partner comes out of the closet… Colony Capital.
But the lede tells you exactly why this story was fed to Nikki: “Forget the bizarre involvement of David Bergstein, and Morgan Creek’s James Robinson, and even Rob lowe.”
Later she adds, “he was being advised by two of Hollywood’s most controversial and disliked figures: not just David Bergstein but also his good friend, Morgan Creek’s James Robinson. I understand that both men are being pushed aside now.”
And there you can find the real nugget in all this… Disney doesn’t want to be saddled with Bergstein as The Buyer. He has real union problems from which Disney wants to stay far, far away. And the idea they are selling a $700 million library to a guy who owes a lot of people a lot of money – and even a lot of smaller sums of five-figures or less – is embarrassing.
Now, they get to sell to Richard Nanula and Colony Capital and yeah, Ron Tutor. Forget about those other guys… sideshow… not our problem.
It will be fascinating to see if Sharon and her source fires back with more BERGSTEIN screams.
Meanwhile, the effort to rebrand what has long been called “Bergstein trying to buy Miramax” as “former insider Richard Nanula trying to buy Miramax for a consortium of serious players who feel just as happy shoving Bergstein out” tells you that the deal is likely all but closed… except for winning the hearts and minds.

Be Sociable, Share!

7 Responses to “Rebranding The Miramax Sale”

  1. dietcock says:

    The very first order of business the new owner of Miramax should undertake (and the ultimate “fuck you” to Harvey) is to immediately let the filmmakers of Weinstein-butchered films into the vaults to release Directors’ Cuts, starting with “Gangs of New York.” That would be AWESOME.

  2. jeffmcm says:

    That last paragraph is unreadable.

  3. IOv2 says:

    Jeff, yeah, that last paragraph is just a bit much. Whose Bergstein? Whose Richard Nanula? Which one is an insider? IT’S ALL JUST TOO MUCH!

  4. chris says:

    A guess:
    Meanwhile, the effort to rebrand what has long been called “Bergstein trying to buy Miramax” as “former insider, Colony Capital principle Richard Nanula ,trying to buy Miramax for a consortium of serious players who feel just as happy Bergstein got shoved out” tells you that the deal is likely all but closed… except for winning the hearts and minds.

  5. David Poland says:

    Yes, some quotation marks or caps would be well advised.
    Sadly, J-Mc can’t understand anything I write and rarely does more than whine about it. I can’t quite figure out why he keeps reading the blog.

  6. IOv2 says:

    He hates us and the hate helps him get through the day. Oh yeah, when there’s nothing going on the blog for most of a day. Open a BYOB to keep the conversation a flowin!

  7. jeffmcm says:

    DP, (a) you’re not as good of a writer as you think you are, and (b) you are getting all that is called for and nothing more.

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