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.

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.

Leave a Reply

The Hot Blog

Jermsguy on: Review: Man of Steel (spoilers)

leahnz on: Don Draper: Critic

Keil S. on: Don Draper: Critic

Joe Leydon on: Don Draper: Critic

Keil S. on: Don Draper: Critic

christian on: Don Draper: Critic

movieman on: Don Draper: Critic

movieman on: Don Draper: Critic

palmtree on: Don Draper: Critic

Foamy Squirrel on: Don Draper: Critic

Quote Unquotesee all »

“I don’t really think, Sean, that you need to know about my various sexual liaisons. Or that anyone else needs to. I did write about them. I filled a hundred pages of Moleskine notebooks with my one-night stands, my affairs. But I decided they didn’t belong in a professional memoir. First of all, these are real people we’re talking about. Many of them were enjoyable. Some were abject failures. My wife said to me when she read the pages, ‘Of what purpose is this in a memoir? Of what purpose is this other than to titillate?’ The point is, I never see them. It’s because I have nothing in common with them, frankly. And probably didn’t at the time. I could not provide a sensible reason why I married these women. The thing is, in the case of my marriages, it takes two people to fuck up a marriage. It wasn’t simply the fault of these women that I lost interest in them and realised they were insignificant relationships. Which is how I look at them right now–as being insignificant. I see them as blips.”
~ William Friedkin On Cutting Interviewers Off At The Sass

“I have to imagine from Mr. Spielberg’s point of view, the paradigm shift in the 1970s was just the new “normal,” a “halcyon era” from which we are straying in the 21st century–because theatrical exhibition is tenuous (as it has been since the 1940s), the home video market has dried up and people are watching pirated movies on their phone. Spielberg’s coming-of-age era was for him the halcyon period that the 21st century “implosion” will cause to go “crashing into the ground.” But he is wrong. The market for movies is actually diverse and highly segmented–although from the top-down movie industry vantage point and media punditry you would not think this to be true.  Would we really mourn for Mr. Spielberg or ourselves if Lincoln would have been made for cable or had played on public television?  Is it bad for humanity that cable television is creating wonderful, resonant stories in long-form series that people want to watch at home on TV (or streamed onto their computer)? I don’t think so, but it is a paradigm shift and it might affect people’s theatrical moviegoing habits. Televisions in people’s homes have had that effect for seven decades–it is not a new phenomenon. As Art House cinema impresarios we need to focus on what WE can do at our theaters and in our communities. It is not productive for us to fret over what pundits say or about what well-meaning filmmakers like the Stevens–Spielberg and Soderbergh–say. We should fret about what we can do in our communities. What we can do to support filmmakers.”
~ From A Response By Russ Collins, CEO, Michigan Theater – Ann Arbor And Director, Art House Convergence, To Mr. Spielberg