(uptempo music)
- Hello and welcome to Close Up with the Hollywood Reporter.
I'm Matthew Beloni, today I'd like to welcome our guests
Scott Stuber from Netflix, Jim Gianopolis from Paramount
Tom Rothman from Sony Pictures, Donna Langle
from Universal Pictures, Toby Emerick from Warner Bros
Jennifer Salke from Amazon Studios and Alan Horn
from the Walt Studios, let's get started.
All right, so we're gonna talk about a lot
of good movies today, but I wanted to start with a question
that has always intrigued me.
Where do most bad movies go wrong?
- Is this the impeachment hearing?
(group laughing)
- Yes, you're being impeached.
And tell us, you make a lot of good movies
you've made some bad ones.
Where do they go wrong?
- Well I can tell you this, nobody ever set out
to make a bad movie.
Movies are comprised of tens of thousands
of individual, creative and financial decisions
and some of those decisions go awry along the way.
But I'm sure I speak for all of us when I say
it's never a matter of intentions.
- That's for sure.
- But it usually does come down to something that happened.
- Well for me it's the screenplay.
I think that it has to start in the screenplay
and as they say, if it's not on the page
it's not on the stage, and I think we have found issues
with screenplays where we were forced to move on the film
because of availability of stars and all that.
- Or a date.
- And found the same problems in the finished
or in the cut of the film we see
that we saw in the screenplay.
- [Alan] This is past blaming marketing, right?
(group laughing)
- No, I just assume it's always marketing's fault
and then we go to this.
- It's marketing.
- I was gonna say the same, with any content
it's always the story, if you're not invested in the story
which starts on the page, then generally you're not
gonna have the kind of enthusiasm you want in the result.
- I would agree that bad movies often go wrong
either with a faulty script or rushing for a release date.
But of course there are good movies that don't work
and there are bad movies that are hits.
- Right, fewer these days, but it certainly happens.
- There is a disparity between, increasingly for me
between what the Rotten Tomatoes score is
and the audience perception is, so the definition of bad
could probably use clarification
because there's not unanimity out there
in terms of what is good and what is bad.
- We'll get into a little bit about the release strategies
but I asked someone what the biggest difference is
between the movie business now and five or 10 years ago
and they said that the number one thing is
it's really hard to release a bad movie
and have it be successful, and that was not always the case.
Do you guys agree with that?
- Absolutely, yeah, I think it's true.
- And how do you deal with that?
Other than making better movies
how do you deal with the fact that it's so difficult now?
- It's hard, because by Thursday evening
you know the verdict and so does everyone else.
Social media lights up, and it becomes a audience consensus.
Right or wrong, not always accurately, but people now
immediately, and it has a great effect on it.
- Yeah, I think it's also, there is a premium now
especially in the theatrical world, for high quality movies
and for originality, and I think when we're programming
our slates, the old adage, only make the hits.
Of course it's not that, we're all capable
of making a movie that doesn't quite connect.
But I think we, it used to be five or even 10 years ago
a movie in a certain genre, if it was a visual effects movie
and it had a certain amount of spectacle
it was anticipated that it would do really well
in certain parts of the world, and that bar
is now really high, and I think that's true
across all the genres.
It used to be again, comedy could be
we just slap it together, production values
don't have to be that high, and I just don't think
that's the case anymore.
- I think the interesting thing, to me anyway.
It isn't a question of bad movies, 'cause I agree
with Alan, that's a very subjective thing.
What I think nowadays is even more challenging
is that good movies aren't good enough.
I'm not sure you ever really got away with a movie
that genuinely was a significant disappointment
but you certainly, used to be if you made a good movie
it was okay, and I know, and I'm sure it's true
for everybody here, I don't think those of us still
in the theatrical business can settle for good anymore.
- Also I think that the floor has dropped
so if you missed, you could open to double digits.
If you had a big movie with big stars.
You can miss now and open to single digits.
- And the bar is higher because there's
a finite amount of leisure time to do anything
and so when the number of films available
increases very dramatically, Scott.
(group laughing)
- Jen. - Jen, and Jen.
That amount of leisure time impacts choices
so you wanna see the best.
- You're also working without a net.
It used to be that you always had this ancillary business
particularly in the heyday of video
where you were filling a pipeline of video distribution
and rental, and so there was always some amount of money
that you could pull, look to.
And that's not the same anymore.
- I think the upshot of it is, to Toby's point
is what I tend to think as the business now
is extremely binary, so big hits are bigger
and big misses are bigger.
- I think a lot of people look at the Disney strategy
as the example of what's working.
You are releasing a smaller number of very pre-branded
high franchised blockbuster movies.
What is it about the strategy that people don't understand?
- Well I don't know if they don't understand it
but the criterion for me, when people come in and say
"We want to have this movie made," I say
well there are two questions, do I have to see it now?
Do I have to see it on a big screen?
And if the answer to both of those is yes
I feel we have a shot.
If the answer is no, it's just increasingly difficult
to get people to leave the house, get in the car
drive to the theater, sit down.
The person to the left's on his cell phone.
You say, "Okay, I'm gonna get in a fist fight now."
The person to the right has the flu.
There'd better be a reason for going, and that's what
our strategy is to do event movies on the Disney side.
- But on the studio side, you've had a lot of success
remaking a lot of the library catalog.
- [Alan] Yes.
- At what point does that become
something you can't do anymore?
- Well there's no question that we at some point
are going to run out of the kinds of films
the remake of "Aladdin" or remake of "Lion King".
We have taken a step past that now, so "Maleficent"
is a step away from "Sleeping Beauty" and "Cruella"
is a step away from "101 Dalmatians".
And we think we have a lot of those opportunities.
But there's no question it's again, a finite universe.
- Scott, you've said that on Netflix, for a $60 million
movie to be considered a success, it has to generate
about 30 million account views.
What did you mean by that, and that's really the first time
I've heard you say anything about Netflix success metrics
so what is the barometer for success on Netflix?
- Each film, like all of us, the P&Ls are different, right?
So you're spending different marketing amounts
you're doing different things around it.
Having been on both sides of the theatrical business
and now the streaming, there's so much out there
for the consumer, that we're still fighting for time, right?
And so we have our own tracking, we have our own anxiety.
We have our own opening weekend, so we go through
the same thing that everyone else does and really
the same thing applies, which is great is everything now
because there's too much choice for the consumer
across all of our mediums, so we work through those things.
But that's a rough estimate of different things
take different marketing aspects
so everything is different in turn.
- So what do you look at on Monday morning
after a big film debuts on the service?
- Well like everyone else we have graphs all weekend long
so I'm getting things the same thing.
Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, all weekend.
- Do you know what we're all watching personally?
- Yes I do, I know exactly what your account
and we're gonna talk about it after.
(group laughing)
- But we look at things in our totality.
We value over a month basically, so we look at 28 days
in terms of it, and because we can see where things are
opportunistic we can market towards it, so we can market
in the second and third weeks as well.
That's our valuation around those first 28 days
in terms of how we greenlight.
So we greenlight off of X money and how much
we're gonna spend, and we hope that this many people watch
in that 28 days, and that's our success metrics.
- So let's take a film like "The Irishman"
a film that has been gestating for a long time
with several different studios, and you took it on.
It's three and a half hours, what is the success metric
for that film?
- Well there's a lot of variables.
You're building us new studios, so you have to really say
we have no IP, we have no library, we can't remake things
we don't have the great cache that Alan has over there.
So you have to say, okay, what is your opportunity?
And your opportunity is filmmakers, right?
Great scripts, great filmmakers, and so for us
to get Marty at Netflix was a big thing.
It was a big win, it was a big wake up.
I think hopefully for the talent industry to say
"Here is one of the icons of film coming over here
"to make a movie," so that was one thing.
And then the economics we could look at and say
"Okay, we think we can actually support it
"with the subscriber rate, we have enough subscribers
"at that economics, that what we think the movie
"can deliver on," and then he over-delivered.
Frankly I think the film is beautiful.
We're deeply proud of it.
- And you were smiling, you gave that film up.
- Yeah, I think it was very ambitious for a studio
to take on a project like that, and for Netflix
I think they were very brave, but I think it's also
a branding thing for someone like Netflix
to be able to say, "I have a Marty Scorsese movie.
"This is the only place you're gonna see it."
And so there's a different perception of the economics
that someone brings to that.
For us at that level, for a period drama
or for anyone I would submit, it was ambitious.
- That's where the consumer wins.
I don't think any of us, any of the studios
could make that movie at that cost at that length
and come out alive, so the consumer wins.
They get to see this Scorsese movie
that couldn't have been made otherwise.
- But as people who have spent their careers
in the movie business, does that bum you out?
That you can't make that movie?
- It actually doesn't, it would bum me out
if no one made the movie, but the fact that it was able
to find a home, 'cause that is a movie
that absolutely should get made, because when somebody
sits down wherever they're going to sit down to watch it
they're not gonna care about what it cost
or what it took to get it made.
They're just gonna care about the experience.
And so I actually think that's what's really exciting
about our entire ecosystem right now, even though it is
giving us headaches and sleepless nights in some ways
but it's never been a better time for content
and for filmmakers, and storytelling
and for things to find their way into the world.
I think We're getting squeezed over the last
five or six years or even longer, right?
So I think it's pretty exciting.
- I think the only difference for us maybe
and the average consumer is I bet everyone at this table
wants to see "The Irishman" in a theater
in a full theatrical presentation.
- Yeah. (chuckling)
- And it will be available to some extent for that
or we'll get invited to Scott's house.
(group laughing)
- You're all invited, you're all invited.
- [Donna] Exactly, we're gonna take you up on that.
- But that's a good question for Jen, because
when Amazon Studios launched its film initiative
that was part of the rollout is that you as a filmmaker
would have that three month window
and you've been moving away from that lately.
Where do you see the strategy at Amazon
going in the next couple years?
- Coming into the company, or looking at the film side
of things, they really were just embracing theatrical.
Lots of prestige movies, not a lot of customer focus
which is what really the company's North Star
is really all about Prime subscribers.
So how do you evolve our movie business to be
more focused on Prime subscribers?
You know that the library deals of movies
that our customers love, soon we might not be able
to have access to all those libraries.
So in trying to fill the pipeline.
We know our customers love movies, just trying to shift.
It's not closing the door on theatrical release.
You see we'll continue to acquire movies that will embrace
that strategy, but it really is trying to get these movies
to our Prime subscribers as soon as possible.
And you look at a movie like "Late Night" for example
that I know the industry made an example of as a failure
a misstep from Amazon, and the truth is we bought that movie
because I believe the movie's commercial
and that our global customer would love the movie
and in fact they do, so it went through this
contractually obligated theatrical release
that we were happy to support for the talent.
Then it gets this horrible report card
but the truth is, the movie's been watched.
We only have US rights, but it's been watched in the US
more than any other movie in the short time it's been on.
It's like "Manchester" and that movie are neck and neck.
But you see the same with "Beautiful Boy
are watched by tens of millions of people.
So you begin to rationalize making those purchases
and paying for an expensive marketing campaign
for a theatrical release for "Late Night"
did accrue to a lot of interest for people
who were waiting to watch it on Prime.
But would you rather strategize and bifurcate
that investment to push toward the Prime premiere?
We probably do that a little bit differently.
So you look at "Aeronauts" and it's a case by case situation
really for us right now.
- Tom, do you think there is any movie star in the world
that is as important to the business as a strong IP?
- Yeah. - Who?
- I sure do, I think it's one of the great myths
propagated out there, that movie stars don't matter.
I would argue the opposite, I would say
movie stars in the right role with the right property
matter more than ever before.
- So would you trade "Spiderman" for every
Leo DiCaprio movie for the rest of his life?
(group laughing)
- I'd love to have both.
- Who's he negotiating with?
- I'd love to have both, that's right.
- But you know what I'm saying.
- Well I could tell you this, that I think part
of the real fun about those of us in the theatrical business
every creative decision is a financial decision.
Every financial decision is a creative decision.
And you have to marry those two things
so we can't make movies independently of the potential
return on that movie, but if you talk about
Leonardo DiCaprio, the event nature of having Leo and Brad
and Margot in "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood"
was essential, you had to make a great movie
you had to have a great filmmaker and you made a great movie
but that movie was not based on any IP at all.
That is a pure original, it came out of the imagination
and the headspace of one individual, a thing that is
painfully rare now, and I think the thing
that we have to be careful, those of us who have
the privilege and the honor to steward these companies
for however long or short we do it, not to narrow
our audience, and not to think that there isn't room
for originality still with the audience.
I think there is, and I think in the pursuit of that
movie stars are tremendously valuable.
I think they always have been and they always will be.
- Alan, you and Tom recently had a little business dispute
over "Spiderman" and I'm curious, what was the one thing
that above everything else, brought it to--
- Well first of all I must say, you must be thinking
about "Tarantula Man" because "Spiderman" was never.
- Speaking of "Spiderman" though.
- Okay, I would say that--
- There were some reports that Tom Holland got involved.
Speaking of stars.
- Tom Holland spoke to Bob Eiger at D23
and I think everything contributes to a final thing.
I think for, what I would say is that the fan base
which is important to all of us, seemed to really
respond to what Tom and his folks had done before
with our people, and they like it.
They like the fact that the MCU, Marvel Cinematic Universe
and Kevin Feige were involved, and we heard
feedback out there that suggested joining forces
once gain was probably a really good idea
for that part of the world that it's most important
which is the fan base.
- Do you think this is something that will continue
after this next movie?
- I hope so.
- 'Cause you've shown you can do "Spiderman" without Disney
on the animated film.
- Yes we have, but I agree with my distinguished colleague
from the other side of the aisle, that I think this was
a classic win, win, win.
I think it was a win for Sony, I think it was a win
for Disney, and I think it was a win for the fans
and movie goers and the only thing I would say about it
is that news cycles and the rhythm of negotiations
do not necessarily overlap, and I think that this is
in the words of Shakespeare, a consummation devoutly
to be wished, and I think we would have gotten there.
And the news got ahead of some things.
- Well I agree with that.
- I think it's an example of the kind of terrific
collegiality that you see around this table
and that we had, we had two films in four yours
of a terrific relationship with Disney
and an excellent creative partnership
and I could just say that we're very excited.
And July of 2021, coming to a theater near you.
- Scott, Netflix has really thrived by putting
the customer first and doing everything for the customer.
But I will say one thing that the customer likes
is to know what movies are hits and what movies aren't.
And Netflix has been adamant about not releasing
viewership numbers, why will Netflix not do that?
- Part of it was just the aspirational way
that Ted and Cindy built the TV side.
When they built it, it was for television creators
to get out ratings and get out of standards and practices
and actually free up their narrative form
so that they could actually tell stories
that they weren't completely every week, night after night
those numbers, so the methodology was right.
And now as we've grown, and we see that people want it
particularly in our business, we're used to it.
Every newscast in every local market is top five.
It's what we strive for and frankly I think we all
get better through failure.
It makes you sharper, it makes you
and so we're okay with it, we don't like it
but it makes us all come back.
So we're definitely as a company moving more
and you'll see more of it, we do it in some of our
earnings reports, and we're gonna be doing it more and more
because that creator and that filmmaker and that actor
and that actress want to know that their movie
got out there globally in a big way.
- So I'll ask some of the others, why is it
so important to release box office numbers?
- I can't stand it, popularity and quality
are not always, go hand in hand, and I also think
to tell you the truth, many times the obsession
that the media has, and we're guilty too
'cause we feed it when it suits us.
What movie is first and what movie is second
and what movie is third, is very unhealthy.
- I think this obsession with the ranking is ridiculous
because we all know the economics of a movie
or the story of a movie, success or failure
is not born on opening weekend.
- Absolutely, yeah.
- It also takes you back to network television
as it evolved, and the overnight ratings
that sent so many reporting on those numbers
that when the viewing habits had changed
and these shows were being watched globally
and were hugely popular, but they were being
given a report card every morning that they were DOA
which then creates perception, and then the company starts
worrying about how solvent the show is
and it sent a lot of shows to an early graveyard
reporting that way.
When they learned later, of course they were all
being pirated all over the world, now we can monetize
those things, so the tale on all the success
of these things, whether it be a movie
or a television series is years long.
Look at your own intentions inside your head
of everything you wanna engage with, we'll be lucky
if we're all alive to be able to see half of it.
So I think it's just hard to really be
a judge and jury on the success of things.
- When we dated the Quentin movie, I knew
a year in advance, because it was the second week
of "Lion King" that absolutely, positively
that movie would not be number one.
- Number one, right.
- And the conversation we had to have with the filmmakers
was, "Understand you won't be number one.
"We'll try to get your biggest opening ever
"but even if we get your biggest opening ever
"I promise you, you will not be number one.
"But I also promise you, is a great day for the movie."
And that movie was not number one.
We were number two.
- We were number two.
- And I was the happiest Jew in Hollywood.
(group laughing)
- We had a great multiple.
- And it's not to blame the press, I mean, obviously.
When it extols the success we all benefit from it.
One of the things we have to manage is expectations.
Because you come up to a release date and the press says
"It's gonna open to $50 million."
And you open to 43 and it's a disappointment.
We never said it was gonna open to 50.
We may have had our own research, our own tracking
our own things, but I think sometimes managing expectations
can make a movie appear, or having excessive expectations
can have something that's quite successful look less so.
- I have a question for Alan.
I remember when "American Idol" was number one
for four or five years in a row, and it was getting
30 million viewers a night, and the president of NBC
at the time said, "We understand, but some day
"it will not be cool to watch 'American Idol' any more."
I wonder if you think about that with the Marvel movies.
- The fast answer is no, because I think if the film
has a compelling storyline, if it has heart and humor
my two things that I insist on, and it's terrifically
well executed, well acted, well directed, well produced
and well written, I think there's an audience
for a great story, and the audience so far has shown
no fatigue with the films we're making
which are, let's say, generally classed as superhero films.
But who knows, we just-
- 23 is a long streak.
- It is. - Unprecedented.
- It is, but Kevin Feige's working away.
He'll be making three or four a year
and they're very different from one another.
So we'll see, we'll see, we don't worry about it
too much, and I think that we, going through
the earlier point, we've done "Lion King"
we've done "Aladdin", we have some of these other things
but we're also doing "Jungle Cruise" and we're doing
other films that are just different.
- We started to notice with "Avengers"
that it was running out of steam.
(group laughing)
- Especially the second one.
(group laughing)
- But I also think, I think the thing people don't
give comic books credit for, is for a giant group of us
they're out literature, they're deep, character based.
- They're not "To Kill a Mockingbird", I'm sorry.
A former English teacher.
(group chattering)
- I have confused the Searchlight time with the Sony time.
- I have to say something there with
"To Kill a Mockingbird".
- But they resonate and that's why you have 800 characters
and you have this thing, and Kevin who I've known
for a long time takes them deeply seriously
and understands the fan base and the nuance
of those characters, so they have a resonance
that people dismiss sometimes because they feel
bright in those things, but there is real character
and Kevin did it incredibly well, and has done a great job
of narratively taking those characters
through that universe.
- It's also an incredibly deep bench, right?
So it's almost like you can't look at it like
it's not "American Idol" which is just one thing
one format, one concept, this is many different concepts
with many different characters with, I think
what they've done brilliantly is the shift in tone
between the different movies and the different characters
it's great.
- There's 7,000 characters in the MCU
and I would suggest that five years ago, six years ago
no one knew who, except for the comic book aficionados
no one knew who Dr. Strange was, they don't know who
Guardians of the Galaxy are, but then they're introduced.
So we have 6.812 to go.
(group laughing)
(mellow upbeat music)
- Toby, one thing that struck me when I saw you at Toronto
right after the premiere of "Joker" was
when we were talking about the film you said
"We wanted to do something that we knew Marvel and Disney
"could never do."
I'm curious, is that how you approach the DC library?
- Well I mean, the impetus behind making the "Joker"
really came from Todd, it was Todd's idea
to do this origin story, and we all read the script
and thought it was really brilliant.
We did think that one of the advantages of being Warner Bros
and having DC is we didn't feel that all the movies
had to be, and not that Disney's films are
but we didn't feel that our films all had to be
of the same tone, or all in a connected universe.
And we thought that making an R-rated super villain
origin story was a cool idea.
We thought we'd do in our first weekend
what we did in our second weekend.
We didn't see it coming at this level when we made the film
but we tried to say that we tried to make
a very diverse slate, and that was part
of the idea behind that.
- And there was some criticism of the violence in the film
in a way that another film, a Universal film, "The Hunt"
was actually scrapped over some similar concerns.
What made those different?
- We took "The Hunt" from the release calendar
out of sensitivity for the mass shootings that happened
over the course of that weekend, and we were in a window
where we were heavily marketing, it was a very short window
and it was because of those events
that we removed the movie.
It later got conflated with it being about the movie
subject matter, but remember, nobody has seen this movie
outside of the studio, and so it was a reaction
to marketing, but that wasn't the reason
that we took it off the calendar.
- And "Joker's" concerns, the families seemed upset
but the consumer didn't seem to mind.
- A lot of the social media comment on the film
really were by people who hadn't seen the film
and didn't know what it was, so we looked at the film
really closely, and did feel that
that it as a great film, that it was a piece of art
and we didn't think it would inspire violence
and so we took it to Venice, it won the Golden Lion
and so we felt comfortable releasing the film
in terms of that, we really thought it was a great film.
- One thing I thought when I was thinking about this
and I don't think, were you guys, you weren't
running Fox when "Fight Club" came out.
- I was running production.
- He was running production, I was running international.
- Don't talk about "Fight Club".
- When that movie came out there was criticism
of the violence and I wonder what would have happened
if that movie had been released in the social media age.
- I don't know, but I think there was always been a lot
of talk and pop culture impact from films, right?
And the mere fact that everybody's on Facebook now
doesn't really to me change that that much.
So there was a lot of talk about "Fight Club" at the time.
There was certainly a lot of media commentary about it
as I think there would be today.
So I actually don't really think it's that different
and I think those issues are just the same kind of issues
that Warners and Uni and all of us have dealt with
at various times, and to do our jobs
you've got to be a strong First Amendment advocate
in these jobs at the bottom line
because you're an advocate for artists
that you're working with, but you do make moral judgments
and I certainly have in my time.
And neither Jim nor I were the greenlight decision
on "Fight Club", we had to shepherd it down the line
so I can't speak to what I would've done
but I certainly do make an ultimate social responsibility
judgment, and I think that it's important that films have
in that old expression, redeeming social values.
- Yeah and I also think, to Donna's point
given the extent of gun violence in our society
at the moment, that there's a heightened sensitivity
to those issues, and there is a certain responsibility
and a line, but I also agree with Tom
that there's a First Amendment and creative expression
needs to be permitted, so I think we have to define
that line for ourselves, and for our companies
and for our filmmakers as we go forward.
- But you can't abdicate responsibility either.
I think you have to make those judgments
and sounds like Warners and Uni considered those things
very seriously, because you are responsible
and I do believe, I think one of the great things
about movies, and interestingly one of the things
that separates theatricality from some of the other
mediums now is the cultural impact that films make.
They make cultural impact, and I know for my own self
I like it when we're making a positive cultural impact.
I think that's a really great thing, and one of the things
that movies can still do, and still do on worldwide basis.
- Sorry, I think we're all in this business
'cause we would wanna back the vision of the artist
and we've had some content that I felt that way about.
I had to try to get as much information as I could
from our customers, and then you saw that actually
it surprised me that there was something I thought
they would react pretty polarized or negatively to
and they didn't, and I think we see that
in the audience for the "Joker".
The sensitivity is there, we need to pay attention to it.
We need to get as much information as possible
but there is so much, such a variety of content out there
that the audience is prepared to see a lot of different
content that can push the boundaries.
But I do think you have to be thoughtful about it
and get as much information as you can.
- I wanted to switch to one industry issue that is
not going away, and that's the windowing issue.
We're basically at a stalemate at this point
where traditional studios are releasing films that play
in theaters, three months later they go to home video.
Netflix is putting movies and other content
directly online and the major theater chains
will not play those movies.
When is the stalemate gonna end?
In your opinion, do you think that we are headed
for some kind of a movement at all in this issue?
- It's complex, right?
Everyone has their own business model
that you have to respect.
- But you're in the MPAA now.
- I'm on all kinds of, I've spent a lot of time
on this issue, because like I said, when we start, right?
No matter how well-funded you are, you have to make
great things, and inevitably when you go in to that
theatrical market you are competing with a lot
of historically successful companies that have a lot
of IP, that you have to find the place on the calendar
as Tom talked about, and when you're starting
with those things where you don't have a library
and you don't have IP, you have to build a vibrant
film studio which was the first thing we had to do
and that was filmmakers, right?
And as you extend, we extended a little bit last year
with "Roma", we extended more this year.
We tried to extend even more, and we couldn't find
the right place, right?
But what it did with NATO, and I've spent a lot of time
with the global cinema chains, they have their business
that I also have to respect and protect for them
because it's a big brick-and-mortar business
there's a lot at stake, so it's a hugely complex thing
that affects all the things we're talking about.
Even success, right?
Many of my colleagues at this table are gonna be
in the same conversations we are, which is
where are we theatrically, where are we streaming
and where are we down the line?
That's the success of those films, so there's a lot
going on, but I think holistically we all have to get
to a place where's there's opportunity and choice
and more movies, to Tom's point, get an opportunity
and it's not always a one-size-fits-all.
So to me, I'm in it quite a bit, but I think
it's an interesting and good conversation, but we have to be
cognizant of everyone's businesses and protect them.
- Well you guys are about to be in that situation
because your companies are both watching
streaming services.
Do you anticipate that changing
the company position on windows?
- I can't speak to that, but I think we all know
all of us sitting around the table know that it's
a non-starter for the companies to have
the conversation with exhibition.
Our agendas are not aligned at all, whether you believe
in breaking windows or you don't.
Our agendas are not aligned, and I think ultimately
it might be the consumer, it might be the audience
that speaks, particularly as more services come online.
And what does that do to the home entertainment window
and ultimately what does that do to the theatrical window?
So I feel it may end up being by attrition.
That none of us have any real control over it.
The business model just shifts to such a degree
that it winds up becoming so obvious
that something has to change in there.
So I don't think it's really a issue
about whether you believe in it or you don't believe in it.
It's just, where is the consumer going to be
and where do we need to be in order to best serve them?
- And Alan, you guys have been most hard line
on the theatrical window issue, but now with Disney Plus
is that going to impact things?
- Well we will reevaluate everything all the time
but we are committed to the theatrical window
and that model has worked for us.
I agree that one size doesn't fit all.
I agree also that there's a message we'll receive from
I think the consumers would like to say
what they would like is to have every film available
in every medium immediately, because it's just easy for them
but we find, especially with a lot of the event movies
we're making, and it's a little different now
that we have Fox as part of our film combined studio
and they're under the umbrella.
Fox Searchlight doesn't make the kind of films
that big Fox makes, or that Marvel makes
or that Sean Bailey makes in the internal thing.
But right now we remain committed to the theatrical window.
That window has proven very important to us because
first of all, we have a high retention rate.
We get a lot of money for each dollar.
But also, these films, these event films
are extremely expensive, and we get a lot out of
the theatrical release, a lot, because the audience
has been embracing them.
And then we go subsequently into our streaming services
but I give Bob Eiger a lot of credit for saying
we're gonna launch our own streaming services
and I think it's a bold move but I think it's good one.
- In five or 10 years, will I be able to pay $100
and watch "Avengers End Game 10" on my Disney Plus
the weekend it's in theaters?
- I would say right now, no.
I can't predict five or 10 years from now.
You're assuming I'll be alive.
(group laughing)
- Yes, I am.
Even if you split that $100 with the theaters?
- It's like a negotiation, I don't know.
If you were to say, "Okay, well what if it's $1000?"
Oh, well, I don't know, right now--
- Some would pay it.
- Well there is that service around, very--
- Red Carpet.
- Our position remains the same, I want to be
clear about that, we are committed to the theatrical
window, and that's what we've been doing
and that's what we will do.
One good thing about the streaming service is
that when we had films that I think are very, very
good films, like "McFarland", done by Niki Caro
with Kevin Costner, like "Million Dollar Arm".
Like "Queen of Katwe", these are very good films.
Really, we are very, very proud of them.
So if you take the criterion of quality
and say, okay, this satisfies that, and take that
off the table, I will say that each of those films
despite their quality, lost money.
But now I can say to Sean Bailey, "Guess what?
"You can now make those films again, because
we don't have to spend $30 million in marketing them.
And I like that, and I think this whole environment
by the way, is really exciting for the consumer.
- I agree.
- Jim, you're now making movies for Netflix
in addition to--
- Every chance we get.
(group laughing)
- But when you're sitting down and thinking
"Okay, what is a Paramount release, and what is going to be
a Netflix movie," how does it not turn into
an A and B level conversation?
- It's a choice you make as you develop.
We develop 10 or 12 properties for every movie we make.
That's very typical, so there are lots of properties
that you get to a point when you talk about theatricality
and you say, "Well this movie may work, but I'm gonna spend
"30 or 40 or $50 million explaining that to people."
Whereas, if Scott wants it, and we can make it
and both of us benefit from it, it's no different really
than the fact that studios have been making MOWs
for the networks for 50 or 60 years.
It's content, and--
- I would say, by the way, just to ride on Jim's point
that I don't see it as an A or B movie thing.
It's a financial--
- Because in our business, you have to make profit.
You're not going to on every movie, but over the course
of a slate and a quarter, and quarter to quarter
you've got to earn back the revenue on the films.
So it's definitely not, to me anyway, A or B.
- I agree with Alan actually, I saw all three of those films
and they're all excellent, but when you measure them
by theatricality and marketability, it's hard.
- It's hard.
- Especially in today's climate, and with the choices
a consumer has, but those movies on a Disney Plus
if I'm a Disney Plus subscriber, I'd love to
have those movies.
- Love them.
- The good thing in it, with Jim, we made this film
"To All the Boys" which is a terrific film
and I think what, I think Tom talked a little about
movie stars earlier, there's been genres that I think
we've lost in the theatrical business because
of the isolation, I think what everyone'll find
in a great way is you open the funnel
you get more storytellers, and there's a giant
audience there, right, so even some of of the more
challenging films we've made, even "Roma", right?
Which is on paper a black and white foreign language film
the audience was there for it, and so that was really
reassuring that you know people love storytelling
and they love movies, right, in every form
and that's what we're all trying to do is keep that vibrant.
- That allows the full discovery of word of mouth
and time for people to enjoy a movie and be able
to find it on a streamer, whereas it'd be
out of the theaters in three to four weeks
and virtually lost.
- Besides, now we're seeing the bent of this conversation
about strategy and the kind of movies
we still have Fox Searchlight, which both of these gentlemen
know a lot about, they've won four out of the last 10
Academy Awards, and we're backing them 100%.
So we're continuing that, because you know what?
They make terrific movies with very renowned filmmakers
with great casts and they're good at this.
- But not all of those movies will get theatrical releases.
- Oh, I think they will, yeah.
All the ones from Fox Searchlight?
Yeah, it's a theatrical program just like it was
when they were running it.
- Okay, Donna one thing I wanted to ask you is
Alan's had a lot of success with the cinematic universe
at Marvel, and connecting a lot of the characters.
And Universal, you dipped your toe into that
and then pulled back, do you see creating any kind
of interlocking movies that can franchise any of your IP?
- Well, doing it with "Fast and Furious"
as we saw this year with "Hobbes and Shaw"
and so that's spinning characters off, and we have
a kid's animated TV show, courtesy of Netflix
which is absolutely fantastic, and that's all geared
towards unlocking a younger audience.
The movies are PG-13, they're a little hardcore
so we tend not to get younger audiences in until later.
We had an attempt at interlocking our monsters
and it was a failed attempt and what we realized is
that these characters are indelible for a reason
but there's no urgency behind them, and certainly
the world was not asking for a shared Universe
of classic monsters, but we have gone back
and created an approach which is filmmakers first.
Any budget range, and our first movie, "Invisible Man"
directed by Leigh Whannell and produced by Jason Blum
so we put it into a different economic model
and starring Elisabeth Moss, and we're really
excited about it.
- So will those movies be connected or no?
- No, not really, they're standalone and they're
very different filmmaking voices, they're original
contemporary, there were no rules, we blew up any
rules, methodology, and we got back some really
exciting ideas, so it's experimental
but I think it can be commercial.
(mellow upbeat music)
- I wanted to talk a little bit about China
because we've seen some of the issues flare up lately.
This battle between commerce and free speech
and appeasing the Chinese government.
I'm curious where you guys think the limit on that is
for Hollywood films, and what you're willing to do
to stay in that market.
It's come up with "Mulan" recently.
- It did, first of all, if "Mulan" doesn't work in China
we have a problem, but my feeling is that first of all
free speech is an important component of our society
certainly, and folks ought to be able to say
what they want to say, and I can't speak for what
Yifei says in China, we didn't know about it
what she was going to say, and that's up to them.
We try to be non-political, apolitical
when it comes to all this stuff, it's just too important.
There's always an issue somewhere in the world
and China happens to be a very, very big market
but it's not the only market where there have been issues.
The only thing I have said to the folks that work with me
is that keep in mind that when you speak
they don't quote you because, like for me
I wouldn't be quoted 'cause I'm Alan Horn.
They don't care about Alan Horn, they care about me
as long as I have this job, and the second I don't
whatever I say won't be quoted anyway.
So I say to people, "Remember that you are what you do
"and that's what will be reported, and that carries with it
"a certain responsibility to at least be aware
"that that occurs, and to be sensible
"and think before you speak," especially on social media.
- Does it bother you that the movies can't offend China?
- No, I mean there's places all over the world, as we say
where, not hard to offend somebody somewhere.
And I didn't say they can't.
They did, so people will say what they will say.
For us we just say we're in the movie business
and we're making movies that are designed to be seen
by an appreciative, hopefully, audience that will
enjoy our movie, it's the entertainment industry
and we want them to go out and see our movie
and have a good time.
We don't wish to be political, and to get dragged
into a political discussion, I would argue is
inherently unfair, it's not what, we're not politicians.
It's not what we do, we're not a governmental organization.
We're making movies.
- Yeah, I think there's also a difference between pandering
and cultural sensitivity, there's a big spotlight on China
because of its size, because of its growing global dominance
and because of the limitations in press and freedoms
in the country, but Malaysia, other parts of the world.
India, there are many times when we've been censoring
movies for years, just to address the concerns
social and cultural of individual markets.
When you do it in China it becomes pandering.
- I mean, I think Jim's point is the right one
which is we run a business.
We have to be sensitive to important markets.
- You've all had long careers doing this.
What's the one movie that you are particularly proud
that you got made?
You can't say Titanic or Avatar.
(group laughing)
- Why not?
(group chattering)
- [Alan] I would say commercially Deadpool
and creatively Slumdog Millionaire.
- That's asking which of your children you love the best.
I love all of mine.
- But you love one the most.
- No, I won't answer the one I love the most actually.
The one I love the most, the one I'm most proud of
is not one you might expect, but I'll give you
the one I'm most proud of is actually a movie
called "Master and Commander".
That was a movie that Peter Weir said no to me
three different times, and I chased that movie
for 14 years, and had to become the head of a studio
with this gentleman to my right to be able to do it.
But no, what I was thinking was "Moulin Rouge".
It was insane to do that at the time.
- They hadn't made a movie musical in 20 years.
- Not just that, there had never been anything like this.
- I just re-watched it, it's bonkers.
- It's great.
- I remember standing on the set, begging Baz
to roll film, "Let's go, roll it."
- How about to finish?
- Roll it. - Such a good movie.
- And filmmakers who make things that the audience
hasn't seen until they see it.
So I've been fortunate enough to have a few of those
along the way, but that's one I was thinking
about last week with a measure of pride.
- It's such a deeply unfair question.
- It really is, it's a good story though.
- But I'll give it a go, 'cause there's just so many
movies that I'm proud of for different reasons.
But a movie I'm really proud of, Scott was around
when we made it, was "United 93".
Paul Greengrass' movie, it was actually my first movie
I advocated for to greenlight as president of production.
And it was the one that most acutely reminds me
of the power of storytelling, the power of cinema
and the power of a filmmaker's singular vision.
And then on the complete other end of the spectrum
the other movie I'm really proud of from a commercial
standpoint, and just because again, similar to Tom's
story, it wasn't obvious until it worked.
That was "Mamma Mia," there were a lot of people
who didn't love Abba as much as I did.
(group laughing)
- I was one that didn't love Abba, that was all Donna.
- It wasn't obvious, and it really wasn't obvious, so yeah.
- Interesting.
- We're about to start shooting the Elvis Presley movie
with Baz in Australia and I just, listening to Tom's story
I envisioned myself in Australia saying, "Baz, please roll."
- Just put him on the phone with Tom.
- For me the one that comes to mind just 'cause
it's happening right now, and I think Donna might have
even been around when this movie started.
We started developing in 1998 I think it was
"Motherless Brooklyn" at New Line.
And Edward was posting "American History X"
and he and DeLuca, he brought DeLuca this book
and DeLuca bought it, and Edward, he didn't hand in
a first draft until maybe 2002, so he took four years
writing the script and lots of filmmakers
it's a great book, a lot of filmmakers knocked on our door
and wanted to take it, and they were really attractive
filmmakers, but you'd call Edward and he's say
"No, I promise you, I'm gonna get it there."
And he persevered and we just had the premiere
in New York at the New York Film Festival
and just to say, wow, we worked on this for 20 years
and we actually did it, is very satisfying.
- That's amazing. - Interesting.
- I think as the new kid on the block in this business
having less than two hands of movies I'm gonna abstain.
(group laughing)
- What about a show though?
- Oh, I could talk about that for a long time.
- [Matthew] Give us a good show.
- I think just at the time, and NBC Universal
trying to get that network from fifth place
under Telemundo to first place, and Bob and I trying
to get in there and figure out where the next hit
was coming from in clearly a hit-driven business
under impossible restraints of a shrinking
linear audience, having "This is Us" come through the door
and the connection, like my story.
My dad had died a few months before.
Dan came in, he talked about the story about his dad.
We just had a real meeting of the minds
and the show has been one that I love deeply
and most recently that just, I watch every episode
and it still is very meaningful to me.
- Well for me, first of all I don't feel like
I'm making anything, the decision to make a film
there's so many collaborative forces that conspire
to get a film actually greenlit, but in my long career
I look back with great affection at
Rob Reiner's first film "Spinal Tap".
I look back at "When Harry Met Sally"
and "The Shawshank Redemption" when we had
Castle Rock together, five of us.
I loved my time at Warner Bros, trying to get
Harry Potter right, and making sure it was
really, really good, and at Disney, I'm excited about
"Mulan" coming up we're all very proud of "Black Panther"
and "Captain Marvel" because they ventured into areas
that were not ventured into before.
- It's experiential, right?
So you remember all the nuance, like there's odd too
that stick out in some ways, one which I would have
never dreamed what Donna and these guys have done
with "Fast and Furious", but when we did it
what was fun about it was watching all of that talent
have their first hit together.
Usually you have an older actor or director
whose experienced, but that whole team
so I vividly remember the weekend, being on the cell phone
the old block cell phone at Gladstone's with Neil Moritz
and the euphoria for all of that talent, right?
That they've grown into this incredible thing.
So that you always remember, and then frankly
on the deep flip side, what was great for me
with "The Irishman" with the New York Film Festival
was being with those icons and having a moment
and seeing Bob and Al and Joe and Marty
and you just felt history and just being around it
I felt like a little kid.
- That's so great.
- And to see those gentlemen who have created
the movies we've all beloved be there and feel
the kinship they had together was really special.
And that's what these things are about is the moments
we all get to share with that level of talent.
- One thing I picked up from Bob Eiger's book
is his skill in delivering bad news that he writes about.
And I'm curious, these are jobs in which you say no
way more than you say yes, and you deliver bad news
to very powerful and creative people a lot.
How do you develop that skill over the years?
- It is a skill and I think it's an important one
for exactly the reason you just mentioned.
I always say to people, "Perfect the art of no."
In fact, turning down a project, you're tempted sometimes
to explain and justify why, and often you're talking
to someone who's very passionate about their creative effort
who's been working on it forever, who believes in it
so passionately, and you're not gonna do it anyway.
So a gentle, "It's not for us, I hope to see you
"at your premiere, and I'd be applauding you
"from the audience," there are various version of that.
But I very rarely will criticize someone
or give them back notes or reasons to justify a no
because it doesn't serve any purpose.
- I think most of our friends in the creative community
say the next best answer to yes is a fast no.
- [Jennifer] I was gonna say, early transparency, yeah.
(group chattering)
- Waiting for that dream to not be told
try and go as quick as you can.
- It's certainly more fun to say yes.
- Nobody complains.
- Is there one that got away, is there a no that you
above everything else, really regret?
- "The 300", that they made.
That was like a story my grandmother used to tell me
as a kid, she always told me Greek myth stories.
She was a classics professor--
- [Alan] It's so interesting that you would say "The 300".
- And I was so close to it that I wanted
I thought we should do it for real, and I saw this
comic book, the Miller book, and I thought, "Oh come on.
"You can't do it like that."
- Does it make you feel better, I did too.
Because we had Zack Snyder off of "Dawn of the Dead".
(group chattering)
And we had a book that we were developing in the same space
with another prominent filmmaker, and we felt like
we couldn't do it, and I for one--
- Ridley Scott should do it, Ridley Scott should do it
like "Gladiator".
- He wasn't obvious, and I mean kudos to you guys
'cause it wasn't obvious until it was obvious, right?
- At the time when Zack Snyder came in, I said
"Okay, are there swords in this movie, yes.
"Are there sandals, arrows, yes, shields, yes."
I said, "Come on, we just did 'Troy' 20 minutes ago.
"How could we do that?"
And we took partners in it, we took partners.
- I think we've all said no, I think if you went back
to every no that we've all given, you could pick
a portfolio of films that would be more successful
than the hits we've said most about.
- That's the old David Picker line and I don't believe it.
(group laughing)
I actually don't believe it, I don't think you
I don't think those of us who are a little long in the tooth
I think for each one of the people around the table
whom I greatly admire, I tend to think you guys
we all get it right more than we get it wrong, otherwise--
- We wouldn't be so long in the tooth.
(group chattering)
- I'm not saying every movie you've said no to.
I'm saying you could select a small percentage of the nos.
Not all of the nos, God no.
- All right, we have a couple of lighter questions
to end on, I'm curious, what movie did you watch
over and over as a child?
- I'll answer that, and it's a fun story.
At the moment for me, it was "The Great Escape"
and when I saw the first long cut in the editing room
with Quentin Tarantino, which was quite an experience.
He sat where Don is, I sat here and we watched the monitor
and I had to tell him beforehand, 'cause it was longer
than it was there, I said, "Listen, guys my age
"we actually have to go to the bathroom.
"So I don't want you to take anything from that
"but we need to plan for this going in."
But there was a moment, for anybody who's seen the movie
where suddenly, and I didn't know, this was not
in the script, so I didn't know that it was coming
when suddenly Leonardo DiCaprio is actually in the footage
as Steve McQueen in the movie that I must have watched
20 times when I was a kid.
- Wearing the leather bomber.
- Wearing the leather bomber going, "Captain," right.
So for me as a kid it was "The Great Escape".
And a little "Lawrence of Arabia" which I tried to get
my daughters to watch, and they promptly fell asleep
so it didn't work.
- [Jennifer] Mine was "Sound of Music".
- [Donna] Yeah, that was mine too.
"Sound of Music" and "Doctor Zhivago".
- We acted out all of that, I have three sisters.
- Which one were you?
- My little sister was the only one who got to be
that little one, singing the sun will go to bed
and so must I, but we alternated from the teenage Liesl
to the younger characters too.
But I loved it, my kids love it too.
- Well when I was a kid, we're not gonna go back
to the Al Jolson era.
(group laughing)
But for me it was honestly, not because I'm at Disney
it was "Bambi" when I was little.
- [Matthew] It didn't terrify you?
- No it didn't, I can still hear, "Mother, Mother."
Really a strong, strong, movie, hat's off.
But anyway, long time ago.
- My mother took me, that was my first movie
when I was five years old, I remember when she died
I went, "Wait, what, what's going on?"
It was tragic and traumatic, but it was still great.
It's still wonderful.
- My mother loved "Doctor Zhivago" so I'd watch the classics
an then I was of the generation right when "Star Wars" hit
so I was that kid who probably "Star Wars", Stephen
and "Indiana Jones" and everything.
So she would teach me the classics, and when that
popcorn moment hit, I was all in, and those were
I left "Star Wars" and said, "Can I go back
"in the theater again?"
And she was thrilled because she could go back and shop
and be like, "Yes, keep going."
- For me, well when you say watching it again
I think of "The Godfather" movies, I kept watching them.
No, because it was the early days of Betamax and VHS
and so those were the early tapes that we just wore out.
- That's all the time we have, thanks everyone.
This was a great conversation, and thanks for being here.
- Thank you very much.
(group chattering)
(mellow jazzy music)