MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Anatomy Of Great Corporate Publicity: Oz Meets The WSJ

Suddenly, I feel like I am on “Punk’d” or something.

The Mission: Get the Wall Street Journal to define a post-John Carter era for the studio, starting with Oz The Great & Powerful.

The Victim: Excellent former LA Times reporter Ben Fritz, just getting his seat in the WSJ Los Angeles bureau warm.

The Con: Alan Horn, a well-liked and well-respected industry senior had almost nothing to do with this movie. Although everyone in town was told when Horn took over at Disney over 9 months ago that he would be “making movies” aside from the massive franchises that are now the near-exclusive area of investment for Disney, that has not turned out to be true… at least not out of some development.

The reason this worked so well is that Horn is an adult and he is the stability that Disney sought to pose as regaining after Bob Iger’s ill-fated, ill-conceived mufti-year odyssey of chasing The New after firing The Old (aka Dick Cook). In all great lies, there is enough truth to make the audience (and reporter) swallow the bite of poisoned apple.

As you read Fritz’s piece, you can practically hear the corporate publicity team measuring the tale. “Leave out the month-plus over schedule the film went on location in Detroit.”

“Wait… don’t even mention Michigan. We got a $40m tax credit and the city is falling apart. We’re not sending any talent to the premiere. Detroit is not a part of this film’s story.”

“Let’s see if we can get the budget any lower. The production was around $200 million in the winter of 2011 (some claimed over $200m by then), before the daring, imaginative reshoots in the summer of 2012. But we’ve gotten people to claim we’re under $300m all-in with marketing. Imagine that… we’re spending less than $100m in worldwide marketing. Ha! We’ve ‘saved’ well over $50 million just by talking to the press!”

“So the Disney strategy is now to own everything it releases in whole… no financing partners. But don’t mention that Bob’s strategy under Ross was to own nothing, but to have individual businesses fund their own films while Disney would be a distribution and marketing company… except for the cartoons. That’s Rich Ross’ strategy now… but seriously, don’t even mention it. Especially never talk about Marvel’s independence having a lot to do with its line of credit when we acquired the company. It’s all in-house now.”

“Mention Saving Mr. Banks as though it was not greenlit by the previous administration with Tom Hanks and Emma Thompson locked in before Horn took the job last May… they might not check that one too closely.”

By the way – it’s me again – the idea of what movie belongs to what administration is pretty iffy. Tomorrowland was “greenlit” by Sean Bailey under Rich Ross about a year before Horn landed. It is true that Horn could have killed it. But it’s hardly his movie. We discussed Saving Mr. Banks. And it would be rather fool-hardy to call a fifth Pirates film his… though the fourth one did start with Dick Cook and then get shepherded though its production and post by Rich Ross.

Indeed, the reason Oz, The Lone Ranger and Maleficent were the only non-animated Disney movies in production when Horn took over is that the strategy that Iger pursued through Rich Ross was to not make movies in-house. And the strategy hasn’t actually changed very much, except that it now includes more direct investment by Disney. (I still expect DreamWorks to be releasing elsewhere by next year.)

In reality, the first hands-on-from-the-start Alan Horn-era project at Disney will probably be Star Wars VII. The ONLY non-animated, non-Marvel, non-DreamWorks film – aside from the six movies already discussed in details – that is on the schedule through the end of 2014 is The Muppets… Again!, another sequel that started with the last administration.

Now…

There’s nothing wrong with that. That is the company strategy. Alan Horn is a quality executive and he is executing that strategy. Perhaps some other non-franchise movies will get greenlit soon. Maybe not.

I just don’t want to be bullshitted.

The Long Ranger and Maleficent are two $200m-plus mega-movies that Disney does not want to stick Horn with, in case they go wrong. (I am hoping they do not, for the record.)

His neck – even though it’s not really his project – is out on Tomorrowland, which is due Christmas of 2014. As the last Pirates film showed, you could have Johnny Depp as Captain Jack talking to a turd and it would do a billion… and not out until Summer ’15. So that’s safe. And no one is going to make a mountain out of a Saving Mr. Banks unless it hits. All safe for him to be attached to.

Don’t get me wrong. Rich Ross was an epic mistake – Iger’s epic mistake – and the studio is much, much better off now. I have no qualms with the idea of doing that story.

But Oz’s opening has about as much to do with Alan Horn as Alice in Wonderland had to do with Rich Ross… virtually nothing. Nothing against the guy or the company, but we will feel Alan Horn’s influence on the studio about a year and change from now.

So great job by the corporate publicity team. Brava/o!

One last note. Disney’s anything/anywhere project for the next number of years is called Netflix. Starting in 2016, Disney will be Netflix’s stalking horse in streaming. And by 2020, as I have noted before, I expect Disney to buy Netflix. If not, there will be either a Disney launch or some massive number associated with Disney staying in someone else’s streaming space.

Be Sociable, Share!

3 Responses to “Anatomy Of Great Corporate Publicity: Oz Meets The WSJ”

  1. etguild2 says:

    Disney is placing a ton of pressure on itself with its release strategy. If you throw in Marvel, 6 of its 10 releases this year have budgets of at least $150 million. Of the other 4, two are distribution Dreamworks titles, one is the likely cash cow ‘toon spinoff PLANES, and the other is BANKS, which as you said….

  2. Pepe Lopez says:

    Joe Roth at Comic-Con waived off the rumor that the budget for Oz exceeded $250 million. However, some below the line guys who worked on set were under the impression that this film was the most expensive being made outside Hwood, and in the $300 million range.

  3. David Poland says:

    Oz was greenlit at around $200m and went months over in production… then reshot and re-posted.

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