New Warner Bros. CEO Might Axe 50-Year Partnership With Clint Eastwood

[LB13]

I don't think most people thought The Irishman was a piece of crap. Of course, I'm a fan of that movie, so I'm not exactly impartial, but review aggregators (which I think are horrendous when it comes to judging whether the movie is actually good or bad, but they give a pretty good idea of what people think) say otherwise -- audience score on Rotten Tomatoes is 86% and IMDb is 7.8/10. And that's just the audience -- professional reviews were even more in favor.

[AKA23]

I disagree that the "Irishman" is a piece of crap movie as well, but it was objectively far too long, at 3.5 hours. It also had an extremely slow pace, which combined with its 3.5 hour runtime, made it feel even slower. It should have been a maximum of 2.5 hours. There was also comparatively very little action that moved the plot forward during the film, another reason the film should have been much shorter. Additionally, there was absolutely no reason to spend $200 million on it. The digital de-aging technology was not convincing. The actors appeared younger, in an artificial way, but the body movements were consistent with a much older person, so watching it felt distracting. It would have been much cheaper, and made for a better film, had younger actors been chosen to play the characters in their younger years, while having Robert DeNiro, Al Pacino, etc portray the characters in scenes which were closer to their own age. I think the film was well made for the most part, but it could have been a much better movie given the talent behind it.

[Perry]

Whats a professional review?.....gimme a break....

[Hocine]

Ironically, some French critics thought that The Irishman is in many ways, an Eastwoodian film, because of his slow pace, his subject, the fact that the main character is an old man at the end of his life, who thinks about his past, his regrets, his mistakes and his sins. The Irishman seems to represent for Martin Scorsese, the conclusion of his gangsters films. I have to see The Irishman again: the first and only time I saw it, I was not that focused. At least, I was glad that Al Pacino worked with Martin Scorsese. Scorsese next film, The Killers of the Flower Moon, will be released next November, I think.

[Perry]

     The Killers of the Flower Moon was a great book that I urge everyone to read. That's the type of movie Eastwood should be doing, not Cry Macho which the WB exec has a 100% valid point.

[batfunk2]

I disagree that the "Irishman" is a piece of crap movie as well, but it was objectively far too long, at 3.5 hours. It also had an extremely slow pace, which combined with its 3.5 hour runtime, made it feel even slower. It should have been a maximum of 2.5 hours. There was also comparatively very little action that moved the plot forward during the film, another reason the film should have been much shorter. Additionally, there was absolutely no reason to spend $200 million on it. The digital de-aging technology was not convincing. The actors appeared younger, in an artificial way, but the body movements were consistent with a much older person, so watching it felt distracting. It would have been much cheaper, and made for a better film, had younger actors been chosen to play the characters in their younger years, while having Robert DeNiro, Al Pacino, etc portray the characters in scenes which were closer to their own age. I think the film was well made for the most part, but it could have been a much better movie given the talent behind it.

I agree with your criticism about Irish Man, even if i liked it a lot. I think it's a perfect conclusion to Scorcese mafia movies as Unforgiven was for Eastwood westerns.
If WB wants to reduce box office risks with Eastwood movies, they Just have to reduce its budget. I always thought that Clint movies are better with a simple and effective script. He always be happy to direct movies, even small ones.
But please, let him keep making adult movies, not Marvel ones or silly blockbusters.,he's not Kenneth Brannagh... Lol

[exit00]

Just to add a little to this discussion, for decades I've repeatedly have read articles that mention that so many of Eastwood's films have made incredible amount of money for Warners, that the studio usually had no problem letting him make a much smaller, personal, intimate movie that by all accounts would not have huge box office.  Maybe in this day of excessive greed ruling everything from movies to sports, Warners will have a different opinion. I always think of two prime Eastwood examples where the studio didn't want to proceed with his projects.... Every Which Way But Loose and Million Dollar Baby.  Wonder how they did?

And for the record, I personally love Honkytonk Man. 

[Gant]

Well said? and agreed

[Gant]

Is anyone else concerned that we may have seen Clints last project ?

[AKA23]

Is anyone else concerned that we may have seen Clint?s last project ?

What makes you think that Gant? I honestly don't know. I hope it's not. I don't really know how seriously the CEO might feel about not green lighting any project that isn't projected to make money, or how Eastwood would feel about having that as a filter criteria for accepting any future projects. I also don't know if other studios might be more willing to finance Eastwood projects, or how Clint would feel about doing that at this point in his career. In interviews promoting "Cry Macho" he did indicate he planned to continue making movies.

I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't see Clint act again. In my opinion, he seemed to be not capable of giving the same quality of performance in "Cry Macho" that he did even three years prior when he did "The Mule". I personally found there to be a pretty big difference in his performance, and kind of wondered whether his health may have impacted that, but I don't know. I did hope and expect that he'd direct again, and I think he should do at least one more movie, so "Cry Macho" isn't his last film. I'll keep going to any future films!

[Christopher]

Is anyone else concerned that we may have seen Clints last project ?

I've wondered that since we haven't heard anything about possible future projects yet. He still could decide to do something and get it made, of course.

[Gant]

Yeah, nothing to do with that CEO it just feels such a long time since we heard anything.. Itll be two years this November since Clint
began work on Cry Macho..

[AKA23]

Thanks Gant and Christopher. He went three years without directing a project from 2011 to 2014. I think it's a little premature to come to this conclusion. It's been less than a year since "Cry Macho" came out. Does anyone else have thoughts on this?

[The Schofield Kid]

I think that his next project will be his last.

[Gant]

I could be wrong of course.. I hope I am. I just think with his age and the complete absence of any news on the film front that
maybe thats it..

[Christopher]

I could be wrong of course.. I hope I am. I just think with his age and the complete absence of any news on the film front that
maybe thats it..

Yeah, I've thought the same thing.

[Hocine]

Clint Eastwood is not officially retired, even if he did not mention a particular project after Cry Macho. Of course, after seeing his last film, many film critics and many film goers were disappointed: they suggested that Clint had better to retire from cinema world. Though it is a minor film in his career, I enjoyed Cry Macho.
My feeling is that Clint seems to have said everything he wanted to say about himself, his persona and America. I also have the feeling that Clint made the best films he could.
However, I hope that he would be able to make an other film, if he had some great material, some great story, some great actors to work with and, why not, some box office potential.
At this stage of his career, not repeating himself may be challenging.

[AKA23]

It seems like this issue of the new CEO not wanting to green light Eastwood's proposed projects may be more serious than previously reported and that it may lead to Eastwood ending his relationship with Warner Bros. Does this mean Eastwood will be retiring, or will he find another studio? 

Warner Bros. May Have Ended Their 50-Year Partnership With Clint Eastwood
August 4, 2022 Jordan Ruimy

Now, after chatting with a few in-the-know individuals about the ?Batgirl? debacle, I?m hearing Eastwood isn?t going back to the Warner Bros, which, as you can surmise, I am not surprised about at all.

The story goes that Eastwood recently pitched a new movie to the studio and it didn?t get greenlit. Yes, they rejected Clint Eastwood. Maybe the movie pitched wasn?t good, I don?t know, but it?s becoming clearer by the day that Warners are going in a totally different direction under Zaslav.

There is more in the article below:
https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2022/8/n4qvmel3cbww1ntb3s3rkb7stmaxho

[Gant]

I?d think he could find another studio if the movie he wants to make looks in anyway promising..

[Christopher]

That does sound promising that Eastwood is planning on making something else. And yeah, you'd think he'd be able to get it with another studio.

Warner Bros. has been making some really strange decisions lately--it's disappointing to hear that projects that are nearly finished are being cancelled (such as Batgirl and a new Scoob movie).