Back to the Disney Star Wars Acquisition and how it’s a “hedge” for Disney

Other Stuff

This is an article I missed at the time, from Salon by Andrew O’Hehir.   What caught my eye was that he had gone through the transcript of the conference call with investors and extracted a quote from Disney CFO Jay Rasulo which pretty much “says it all” in terms of the perspective of Disney on starting a new franchise, or just buying one.  Not only does it capture the quote – but it comments on it in an interesting way:

In a conference call with financial analysts, Disney CFO Jay Rasulo clearly positioned the Lucas deal as a strategic marketplace hedge: “We determined we’d be better off releasing a sequel to ‘Star Wars’ than most other not-yet-determined films. We love that this will take place in our release strategy as an already branded known property.” Rasulo didn’t mention “John Carter” or the almost as calamitous “Mars Needs Moms,” to be sure, but he didn’t have to. The guy’s just doing his job, and as I’ve already said, given the terms of the discussion I agree with him. “Not-yet-determined films” present unknown risks; a seventh, eighth and ninth “Star Wars” movie present nearly none.

But it’s precisely the terms of the discussion – the bigger social and cultural picture – that need to be interrogated. Hollywood’s always been about making money, first and foremost; let’s not act naïve about that. David O. Selznick poured all that money and star power into “Gone With the Wind” because it was a bestselling novel that had swept the country, and he had an excellent chance of making a killing. But that same year, producer Mervyn LeRoy placed a longshot bet on a children’s fantasy novel that had been published 40 years earlier, casting an over-age child star in an elaborate musical that went back and forth between black-and-white and color. That bet didn’t pay off, at least at first; it required multiple re-releases for MGM to recoup its investment in “The Wizard of Oz.”

It’s probably fair to say that the American movie industry has gone back and forth, throughout its history, between periods of being more and less risk-averse. Entire books have been written on that subject, and I can’t do it justice here. Let’s suggest, as a general rule, that periods of explosive creativity like the late 1930s, the early 1970s and (to a lesser but significant extent) the mid-1990s involved a complicated set of interlocking factors that gave producers and directors permission to take chances and, yes, make mistakes.

With Hollywood feeling threatened on many fronts and facing a diminished or decentered cultural role, risk is now seen as unacceptable in itself, and every big-budget flop makes that worse. (Warner Bros.’ flawed but fascinating “Cloud Atlas” will serve as this year’s example. Even if it breaks even or comes close after worldwide release and ancillaries, its reputation is doomed, and the Wachowski siblings will have to sit in meetings with studio executives and be told to make “something more like ‘The Matrix.’”) That’s the true lesson of the Disney-Lucas deal: The Mouse is moving all its chips off new ideas and new productions, in favor of reheated hits from years gone by.

I participated, to some degree, in the critical dogpile atop Andrew Stanton’s “John Carter,” which was a dumb financial gamble and a doomed project from the get-go. I almost feel badly about that now – qua movie, “John Carter” wasn’t actually so awful, and the fact that Disney devoted all that money and time and energy to a first-time live-action director and an unproven science-fiction franchise suddenly looks like a lost golden age.

I think this captures the atmosphere in which Disney operates, versus the atmosphere or ethic that Dick Cook was operating in when he greenlit the project.  Cook was definitely a “throwback” studio chief. . . . and his decision to greenlight John Carter really, truly was out of synch with Bob Iger’s Disney.

And before my contrarian pals go off on this — I would also add that while Cook was “old school” in the green lighting of John Carter, neither he nor anyone really did what ‘old school’ studios are supposed to do in terms of the actual making of the film, which is to ride herd on the director and exert influence as necessary to ensure that the studio investment — in this case a massive one — is being executed in a way that strategically aligns with the studio.  In other words, it may be old school to greenlight ‘Carter, but it’s not old school to just give a first time director a blank check and no “adult supervision”.   Was that purely a function of the fact that Cook was gone four months before production started?  Or would Cook have been hands off all the way through it if he had stayed?  We do know he didn’t push back on the budget or the casting or the script . . . . but it would still have been possible to not push back on the budget, but exert influence on everything that followed.

Although, when you think about it ….the budget, the casting, and the script are the three main areas where a studio chief or his designee can have a real impact, and no one–Cook or surrogate–did anything other than enable all the decisions coming from the director.

Still and all, in the end I think that Cook has to be viewed in a favorable light on the whole matter of John Carter and these comments from O’Hehir in Salon really differentiate Cook from  the mentality exhibited by Iger and Rasulo.

9 comments

  • Dotar Sojat Wrote:
    “I think he’s referring in a positive sense to risk-taking and taking a shot with unproven material, as opposed to being risk-averse and only doing tried and true established properties. I think this is a larger issue that often gets lost — critics whine and complain that Hollywood frequently just goes for the lowest common denominator “safe” choice — then when they take a flyer on something like John Carter they get criticized by the same people for the foolishness of their choice. ”

    I don’t see that. The problem with his theory is that John Carter wasn’t taken on as a risk by Disney. It was taken on as a vanity project to keep someone-in this case Andrew Stanton and his Pixar bosses-happy. I truly doubt Dick Cook thought much beyond that-it was just to keep relations good with Pixar and one of their bigwigs, not because he thought John Carter of Mars was a viable property for the studio, especially since he had been there long enough to probably remember how much trouble they had trying to make a JCOM film before. As for being criticized maybe if they hadn’t just given Stanton carte blance to do whatever they wouldn’t have been criticized. I don’t believe anyone criticized Disney for giving a green light to John Carter, they were criticized for allowing Stanton to go overboard on the budget and his own ego.

    “As for would Disney have believed “Stanton’s BS” about John Carter — yeah, I think he probably would. After the success of Nemo and Wall-E (especially Wall-E), I think it was easy to believe that the guy had a certain magic sense of story. I know you disagree with the general view of those two films, but I don’t think Walt would have.”

    No Walt would have probably looked at the lack of live action skills that Stanton had and decided no. In the documentaries I watched on the making of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and the Zorro television series, everyone made a point on how Walt hired directors with those skills because he wanted it to look both professional and to compete with the other studios. He knew he wasn’t just competing with the animation work but with what Paramount, Fox, etc were turning out. He also wanted people who were open and could work well together and accept ideas or help. He made sure to hire those people to work on his live action projects, not just yes men as did Stanton. That and he was a strong believer in story, something that Stanton and company messed up on here. Walt believed you had to be invested with the lead and that he or she had to be likable, filled with hope and foibles. I doubt Walt would have liked Mopey Carter since he failed on all those fronts.

  • MCR wrote:

    “Disney devoted all that money and time and energy to a first-time live-action director and an unproven science-fiction franchise suddenly looks like a lost golden age.”

    Oh brother. A “golden age?” Of what? Prince of Persia? Mars Needs Moms? Sorcerer’s Apprentice or whatever crap they pay Johnny Depp to star in? An age where Disney allowed Walt’s greatest invention to fade away in the face of Pixar (and believe me I would rather have a hand drawn Winnie the Pooh over Cars 1 or 2).

    I get your point but I’m not sure you’re getting his (the writer’s).

    I think he’s referring in a positive sense to risk-taking and taking a shot with unproven material, as opposed to being risk-averse and only doing tried and true established properties. I think this is a larger issue that often gets lost — critics whine and complain that Hollywood frequently just goes for the lowest common denominator “safe” choice — then when they take a flyer on something like John Carter they get criticized by the same people for the foolishness of their choice.

    As for would Disney have believed “Stanton’s BS” about John Carter — yeah, I think he probably would. After the success of Nemo and Wall-E (especially Wall-E), I think it was easy to believe that the guy had a certain magic sense of story. I know you disagree with the general view of those two films, but I don’t think Walt would have. But then again, I’m not an expert on Walt Disney. At least Stanton lived up to the Walt Disney quote — the same one that the rest of Disney didn’t live up to — the idea that when doing a project, “we believe in it all the way. We have confidence in our ability to do it right. And we work hard to do the best possible job.”

    The rest of Iger’s Disney sure didn’t “work hard to do the best possible job”.

  • I find it interesting that the inevitable conclusion one comes to after reading the piece is that Stanton/Pixar are at fault for JC’s failures and that if the “studio” had exerted normal and customary practice, the film would have been a success. The tug of war over responsibility is only settled by accepting that the film itself is just plain bad and that all the actors are at fault collectively. Looking for any other explanation can only result in unsatisfactory answers like this one.

  • After all the John Carter situation is not unlike what happened with Star Wars. George Lucas was given a lot of freedom, even when the situation turned critical (for example when Industrial Light and Magic was unable to show a single effect shot after already spending a million dollars). Alan Ladd Jr was supportive all the way, even when his subordinates asked him to pull the plug on the production. It could have turned good for John Carter too (well, it still can, but it will be a loooong process).

  • “Disney devoted all that money and time and energy to a first-time live-action director and an unproven science-fiction franchise suddenly looks like a lost golden age.”

    Oh brother. A “golden age?” Of what? Prince of Persia? Mars Needs Moms? Sorcerer’s Apprentice or whatever crap they pay Johnny Depp to star in? An age where Disney allowed Walt’s greatest invention to fade away in the face of Pixar (and believe me I would rather have a hand drawn Winnie the Pooh over Cars 1 or 2).

    The funny thing about this is that maybe Iger wouldn’t have went into this “buy it” mode if Disney had been run properly or hadn’t made so many bad movies that audiences stayed away from, and that includes the junk Dick Cook greenlit before he was shown the door. Do you really think Walt would have given the go ahead to such junk like Tron Legacy or Jim Carrey’s Christmas Carol or believed Stanton’s BS about John Carter? That’s what has destroyed Disney, poor judgment and only aiming for the lowest common denominator.

  • Oh, I agree 100%, I was not trying to be sarcastic (but re-reading my post I can see the confusion). Another article, not this one, aluded to the fact that the acquisition of Marvel and then Lucasfilm could mean the end of Disney’s movie division (as buying Pixar almost destroyed Disney’s CG animation department). I hope it’s not meant to be, but it probably depends on the success of the future high-budget movies.

  • Pascalahad . . .

    Funny example, since Disney is about to release another Oz movie.

    Yeah, but I think that’s still consistent. Oz was greenlit a long long time ago . . . doubt it would stand a chance to get greenlit now if it were just coming up on the radar.

  • Funny example, since Disney is about to release another Oz movie. Let’s hope this movie and The Lone Ranger will be successful for Disney’s movie division to prove its worth. Alan Horn seems more of the hands-on studio chief. We’ll see if his Rocketeer project gets off the ground (pun intended). Between Marvel, Pixar and Lucasfilm, it’s possible we will see less and less purely Disney projects, and that’s a shame.

Leave a Reply