‘World War Z’ a Big Test for Paramount’s Wary Strategy

“World War Z” (Paramount)

Things too quiet on the Melrose front as studio doesn’t make many movies or create much sizzle

Memo To: Brad Grey
From: Peter Bart

Back in 2005, Brad, when you were named Paramount’s uberboss, I wrote a memo to you that waved some warning flags. “You’ve never run a studio,” I wrote, “so let me list all the things that could possibly go wrong.” You were politely dismissive of my warnings — that is, until just about all of the dire predictions became reality.

Eight years later, those problems have been long forgotten and your regime at Paramount seems as solid as any in town. But is it solid or stolid, as some of your critics suggest? The studio doesn’t make many movies or create much sizzle. It’s almost like the ‘R’ word (risk) has been dropped from the studio’s vocabulary.

That’s why there’s so much focus within the industry on the opening of “World War Z” on June 21. This isn’t just another summer release, it’s your only other summer movie besides last month’s “Star Trek.” And since it’s only your fifth release of 2013, the success of this $200 million Brad Pitt vehicle is pivotal to the studio.

I realize this sort of comment exasperates you, Brad. You argue persuasively that your studio’s lean schedule and disciplined cost controls have contributed to Viacom’s lofty earnings and record stock price, that next year’s slate holds great promise and that the studio’s stability is widely respected by Wall Street. At a time when some analysts are second-guessing Sony for distributing so many films (it will release seven between now and the end of August), Paramount’s relative austerity has its supporters, or so you say.

Still, austerity has never defined your style, Brad. As a prolific talent manager and producer, you were inventive and hyper-active. Your name still adorns Bill Maher’s TV show. But the new Brad Grey, age 55, looks and acts more like a buttoned-up corporate type than the congenial dealmaker of former years. When you talk about your adventures working beside Bernie Brillstein, you still laugh at your war stories. Time and again, the two of you brilliantly devised ways to trump the majors.

But Brad, the dealmaker, might have had problems negotiating with Brad, the studio boss. As I understand it, your Paramount strategy lays out like this: The studio releases up to 12 movies a year (plus perhaps a distribution pickup), most of which are co-financed. The slate consists to a large degree of franchise projects with a very occasional midrange picture like “Flight” (which cost $30 million and grossed slightly more than $160 million worldwide).

And most of the projects are Paramount-bred. Mega-deals with reliable suppliers like Marvel or DreamWorks Animation are things of the past, and so are producer pacts but for relationships with a few key filmmakers like Michael Bay, who is currently shooting “Transformers 4.”

Hence the tentpole-centric pipeline is heavy with sequels — future “Mission: Impossibles,” “Transformers” and “Star Treks” (the latest iteration a certified hit). There’s a sequel to “Anchorman,” a sci-fi opus from Chris Nolan titled “Interstellar” and a pricey biblical co-production from Darren Aronofsky titled “Noah.” Paramount also will distribute Marty Scorsese’s latest film, “The Wolf of Wall Street,” which Viacom’s Wall Street admirers may or may not embrace.

You’re taking some big swings, Brad, and, because of your limited agenda, none of your filmmaking partners can accuse you of lack of focus. The re-shooting and marketing of “World War Z” has been a studio obsession. When Rob Moore, your distribution guru, ran Revolution with Joe Roth, the production company made more films each year than you have on your entire Paramount slate.

Many in the creative community worry that the Paramount strategy translates into fewer jobs and a more rigid, sequel-obsessed approach to studio planning. From your standpoint, Brad, I can see why the program seems attractive, compared with your first few turbulent years at the studio, when every one of your decisions seemed to stir maximum turbulence. The first cycle of top executives — Gail Berman, John Lesher and Brad Weston — were all casualties of this turbulence. And, the press reveled in your alleged links to Anthony Pellicano, some even predicting your demise.

You’ve deftly survived all the noise Brad, but now it’s almost too quiet on the Paramount lot. Some banner worldwide grosses for “World War Z,” a costly high wire act, will liven things up (the portents are encouraging) but so would additional challenging new film projects — especially those embodying that dreaded ‘R’ word.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 6

Leave a Reply

6 Comments

Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. I think Peter is correct except its not just Brad Grey but everyone in the so called “Studio System” who are taking zero risk on their slate and in my opinion unlike the other people commenting on this article its not sour grapes to make an accurate observation. It no crime to make money but it would be nice if the movies were just a little better more often.

  2. Ian D says:

    What’s interesting is how this strategy isn’t dissimilar to the long-successful but ultimately undone strategy of his predecessor, Sherry Lansing. Paramount rarely spent exorbitant amounts of money on films (“Mission: Impossible” was a rare big budget breed, “Star Trek” films were given austere budgets barely keeping up with inflation as the years progressed), co-produced like mad (risk-adverse to a fault, but she famously held 20th Century hostage to only a $65 million bailout for “Titanic’s” ballooning budget and Paramount received the full domestic grosses in return) and eventually festered (during Par’s 90th Anniversary, in a way like how the 100th Anniversary was marred somewhat by a notably reduced presence in the marketplace, but more serious). Grey came in with big goals, a major loosening of the purse strings and big partnerships. It worked, but he seems to be falling prey to something very familiar…

  3. david ross says:

    Let’s review… “…a lean schedule and disciplined cost controls have contributed to Viacom’s lofty earnings and record stock price.” Hmmm…seems like Brad’s strategy is working. And the sour grapes and naive analysis of Bart’s, isn’t.

  4. EK says:

    More sour grapes from the former Paramount exec and one-time editor-in-chief of Variety still seeking relevance (another r word) long after his ship has sailed beyond the point of no return. Or is it an impersonator aping former “glory” days editorials. Or perhaps a mislabeled column from Hollywood & Swine? In any case, hollow words more worthy of sibling Deadline, which revels in vitriolic first person “journalism,” than venerable Variety which is trying to resurrect its biblical brand.

  5. harry georgatos says:

    tentpole picture or non-tentpole picture it always comes down to the quality of the scripts. A Hollywood studio may make 15 or 5 films a year but if the premise and writing is good enough then people will respond. Some dumb films like TRANSFORMERS have an in-build audience and the only factor that matters with those movies is the right director and technicians. Michael Bay was destined for these type of films as no one could have made them better for it’s target audience of 15 year old kids. It’s a matter of script, director and casting. As for me I’ve got my fingers crossed for Nolan’s INTERSTELLAR next year.

    • Norbert says:

      You would be surprised how many great movies have bad scripts and how many bad movies have great scripts. Look at previous years black lists that were produced. Also Nolan is a bad example since his scripts are average. You can even see it when you watch his movies. His movies are so good because he is a great director.

More Film News from Variety

Loading