August 10, 2004

The Miramax Rumor Mill continues to produce hourly stories… which are all pretty much the same rumors rewritten over and over so someone can pretend that they actually got something. The last real "get:" in this situation was Bruce Orwall coming up with some specific numbers on the Fahrenheit 9/11 deal between Disney and FAG.

The popular rumor right now is that Bob Weinstein and Dimension will continue to operate at Disney… though the $350 million figure that Laura Holson threw out in her story today is likely high by some nine figure number… and Harvey Weinstein will become a free agent producer. What no one is coming close to yet is the structure of such a deal. The boundaries for anything that was not actual Dimension product would have to be severely drawn by Disney… and given the public beating they've taken for offering flexibility this year, it would have to be in dark ink.

The notion, offered up in Holson's article as only a Miramaxer could, that Harvey could make movies as he saw fit and then "market (those) movies using the Miramax name" is one of the rather unthought-out notions that these rumors embrace. Even simpler… what exactly does that mean? Would Miramax release movies that Harvey did not produce? Would Disney demand a right of approval/refusal on any Harvey film that would require a Miramax P&A investment of more than $15 million. What restrictions would be on Bob in terms of being an equity partner in Producer Harvey's films? Etc, etc, etc…

So much of what has been printed makes no sense if you just read it out loud. The New York Times has Dimension making six films a year for around $75 million each in production and marketing costs. But then, a paragraph later, Bob Weinstein is distributing Harvey Weinstein's independently produced films. With what money? And why would Disney want some such obligation? And why would Harvey want to go to Miramax, which would - according to this story - be in the business of making and selling only six films a year? The studio that exists now releases about triple that figure each year.

Is the magical thinking that Disney is going to allot another $250 million a year to sell and acquire home entertainment rights to Harvey's five movies, effectively making the Miramax budget $600 million a year, which is exactly what Disney is trying to avoid?

I guess one could suppose that Disney just wants to be bent over and ridden by Harvey Weinstein because they enjoy that relationship, but I don't think so. Producing-minded Harvey has been outplayed by Chris McGurk twice in the last year when MGM bailed on both Cold Mountain and the now-delayed Brothers Grimm. Disney has earned hundreds of millions and literally billions in equity in the Miramax business over recent years… did they manage that by being stupid?

While there is only one movie still actively in the Miramax production pipeline, in spite of Meryl Poster's two-months-to-date absence, the studio has around 20 films in the can or near completion that are anticipated. How much of Bob Weinstein's budget is going to be taken up in P&A for Harvey's Brothers Grimm decision? How will the Dimension budget be affected once the pipeline is clear of all the current clogs? And what of the more immediate push for "Oscar movies" like Finding Neverland, Dear Frankie, Shall We Dance and An Unfinished Life?

Then there is The Aviator, owned primarily by Warner Bros. and IEG, with Miramax on-board to sell the thing with some obligation to P&A. Will Warner Bros. want its movie sold by a Harvey-less Miramax? Will Disney insist that Harvey live up to that marketing obligation as part of any exit package? How does a company that would have such a politically powerful producer on board - much like Scott Rudin or Imagine in some ways - decide how to prioritize when one of that producer's films are in play? It is easier to determine such a thing at Universal since it comes down to a business decision and there are other powerful players at work. Is Bob Weinstein going to fight Harvey Weinstein over the degree of commitment the studio will make to open one of Harvey's movies? Can Disney afford to be involved in that game?

And what of the 65% of the Miramax staff not currently being threatened with layoffs? Will veterans like Amanda Lundberg and Cynthia Schwartz want to work for just Bob Weinstein? Can their employment contracts be severed by the exit of a key player like Harvey Weinstein?

How about Miramax's International Distribution arm, which holds a position on such high profile 2005 titles as Cinderella Man? Would Imagine be comfortable with their film being handled by a Harvey-less Miramax?

Then there is Miramax TV, which has two Bravo series going at the moment. And while Live Planet is dominating their direction, how much does the promise of Harvey mean to the legitimacy of those projects?

Miramax is also on Broadway and just announced a new show last week. How does that fit into this overall picture?

One thing to remember is that this is all being negotiated because everyone needs the process to be as clean as possible. A new fiscal year is right around the corner and there is a lot of clean-up waiting to be done. It makes sense that the deal, whatever it is, get done by the start of the next fiscal year (Oct 1). But a lot of journalists keep presenting this as 1) at the discretion of the Weinsteins and 2) a simple step for Harvey. There are many ways for this to go… but none of them are easy, none of them are neat and none of them are an assurance of success for either side.

Disney cannot let Harvey Weinstein run Miramax without being an employee of Miramax. Likewise, Harvey cannot just walk away from the many obligations he has made at Miramax without paying a terrible price. Being a successful producer would be challenge enough. He doesn't need any more bridges burnt in getting there.

Whatever the answer, it will be interesting. In the meantime, just keep passing those open windows. And pass the salt, grain by grain.

READER OF THE DAY: LAWYER BOY is one of the rare readers who didn't like Collateral and here is why: "As Collateral rolled along, I pretty much figured out that there would be better TV shows I would see this year, that would make this movie look like a rather average experience. The movie comes across as nothing more than an extended episode of Mann's ROBBERY HOMICIDE DIVISION. Not that that's a bad thing, but Mann's no Joss Whedon when it comes to Show Running.

Which means the film like the show just comes across uneven and hokey in spots. It has great acting and directing, but I want more from a film. Just because it has nice parts, does not mean I can overlook a film where Tom Cruise doesn't even play a REAL BAD GUY! He's more of a morally ambiguous guy. The only point where he becomes truly the BAD GUY sold in trailers and other marketing came about during the ridiculous end of the film with Jada Pinkett Smith third act. Yeah she acts as well as anyone else in the film, but her entire plot point of the movie throws a totally struggling to suspend disbelief flick to begin with RIGHT OUT THE WINDOW. The writer of Collateral apparently just likes giving the kids ridiculous plots even more ridiculous than Gigli.

This film easily could have been a contender, but any nominations it gets outside of cinematography and directing would just be as much as a stretch as Collateral's plot. Movies like this really disappoint, but at least they are well made and you can tell all involved weren't mailing it in. I can't blame Mann for trying, but this film could have used a few tightening of the screws. But what do I know? Apparently more than EW, but that's all subjective.

E ME: What's gonna happen?