Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Pic rocks the Warners boat
'Poseidon' fizzle doesn't bode well for studio's event pix
One tentpole does not a studio make -- or break. But the failure of Warner Bros.' "Poseidon" to launch at the U.S. box office points to vulnerabilities in the studio's bold tentpole strategy.
More than any other industry chieftains, Warners chairman and CEO Barry Meyer and prexyprexy-chief operating officer Alan HornAlan Horn have been aggressively gung-ho about event films, in the belief that expensive megapics with global reach hold a huge upside in the form of worldwide box office returns and ancillary revenues.
While other majors use a similar strategy, the difference at Warners has been in scope: Up to four or five tentpole event pics per year, a number that would send execs at other studios running for the Hollywood Hills.
For the most part, it's a blueprint that has served Warner Bros. exceedingly well. The Harry Potter franchise alone has generated billions of dollars. For the first time in its history, the studio ended last year No. 1 at both the U.S. and foreign box offices and No. 1 in homevid. The last time a tentpole tanked was in the fall of 2003 with the bow of "Looney Tunes: Back in Action."
And in the Time WarnerTime Warner media empire, where management means everything, Meyer and Horn are respected as cool-headed pros.
But the tepid U.S. bow of "Poseidon," directed by Wolfgang PetersenWolfgang Petersen, has brought into question the extent to which event pics can be mandated and manufactured. If they fail, they fail big.
There are other rumblings for studio's parent company Time Warner. Some major institutional shareholders may still favor the idea of splitting Time Warner into three parts. The volatility of the Warners tentpole business could exacerbate these tensions.
Horn, for his part, regards the studio's tentpole operations as "stunningly successful. The suggestion that the experience we are having with 'Poseidon' -- which I'm still not willing to concede, because it still hasn't opened in many territories -- would affect our tentpole strategy is silly," he says.
Institutional investors, Horn says, "want to know about quarterly earnings. We have a big company here. They aren't asking about Poseidon."
It certainly cushions the blow that "Poseidon" was 50% financed by Virtual Studios, one of the private equity funds on which Warner leans heavily to finance its slate.
But the "Poseidon" opening coincided with the departure of Virtual toppertopper Benjamin Waisbren, though sources at Virtual denied his exit had anything to do with the pic's performance.
The seagoing film is the first sour note for Warners' private equity funds, a group that also includes Legendary Pictures, which is backing half of "Superman" and penguin pic "Happy Feet."
And that money is not about to dry up. Just about every picture on Warners' upcoming slate, from small to large and everything in between, is being co-financed by Legendary, Virtual or longtime partner Village Roadshow.
They have placed their faith not only in Warners' tentpole system, but also in the studio's midrange pics.
"Poseidon" took in a mere $22.2 million at the U.S. box office on opening weekend; it cost at least $150 million to make and easily another $40 million to $50 million to market Stateside.
"I'm not willing to concede 'Poseidon' as a failure of great magnitude, but I will agree that the results in the U.S. have been very, very disappointing," Horn says. "But it doesn't for one second change my perspective. We will lose money, but less than we have on lower-budgeted films. It will be an acceptable loss."
There's still some soul-searching under way on the Warners lot about how the remake of the 1972 prototypical disaster movie "The Poseidon Adventure" went so far off course.
That debate will become much more rancorous should the studio's other tentpole pics this year, "Superman Returns" or animated "Happy Feet," underperform. Some executives also consider M. Night ShyamalanM. Night Shyamalan's "Lady in the Water" a tentpole, and there are worries inside the studio about how it will play.
Read more: http://www.variety.com/VR1117943708.html
Dan said:The article link was kinda unnecessary to the point you were making, no? It seems like you sort of trying to overcompensate so this thread would be more than just you reminding us you don't like gay people
Dan said:Yeah, I immediately regretted wording my post the way I did. It came across as confrontational, wasn't meant to be.
We must agree to disagree and shrug. :huh: :huh:
Dan said:Again, worded wrong. But, yeah, judging by a vast majority of your comments, I would say that you hate gay people. Not meant to belittle you or anything, that's just the impression I get. The reason we need to agree to disagree is that I know that a lot of the reason you have these feelings comes from religious beliefs, and history has proven that it is more or less impossible to make someone think differently when the basis of their beliefs come from religion. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to edit my original post.
You haven't read all my posts then; and are judging me on only a few.
I'm a little upset I haven't been clear enough on my position.
Therefore, for the record. I love people, in general.
just kiddin.I hate people asking for their behaviour to be excused because they are somehow victimized by genetics. I don't support homophile agendas. Has nothing to do w/ 'people'.
Dan said:See, this doesn't make any sense to me at all. You like gay people, you're just against everything they stand for?
Did you tell the two gay guys that you were friends with that you hate the very idea that their lifestyle is not a conscious choice?
Both accepted their behaviour as a conscious choice. They both felt a sense of addiction; but took responsibility for acting upon that desire.
Eww.dmp said:In spite of the difference they had with me, we were close enough to share ... shit.
Is that you and D in the middle? I always did like to watch.Dan said:Claytaurus => :kiss2: <=Roomy
manu1959 said:the reason the movie tanked is it sucked the first time they made it .... does hollywood have an original thought anymore
5stringJeff said:I agree. I could care less about gay characters, though I agree that Hollywood oversaturates us with them. But it's a movie about a sinking ship. Newsflash - Titantic came out ten years ago!!!
