News: Having trouble registering?  Please feel free to contact us at help[at]clinteastwood.org.  We will help you get an account setup.


0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this board.
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Stars and production companies?  (Read 1574 times)
herofan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 276



View Profile Email
« on: September 16, 2011, 07:37:45 PM »

Do most big stars have their own production companies?  I read that Adam Sandler has one.  I guess since I'm a big Clint Eastwood fan that I knew he had Malpaso, but I thought it was something special and never thought much about others.  Is it no big deal for an actor to have their own production company?
Logged
The Schofield Kid
Global Moderator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 23174


All on account of pulling a trigger.


View Profile Email
« Reply #1 on: September 16, 2011, 07:59:27 PM »

I didn't think any of the current actors had their own production company, maybe they do? I remember John Wayne had Batjac and Bogie had one. I thought it was mainly the older actors who started in the studio system but wanted more options than just doing what their studio wanted them to do.
Logged

"Winners are simply willing to do what losers won't."
KC
Global Moderator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28801


Control ...


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #2 on: September 16, 2011, 08:43:04 PM »

A lot of successful actors have their own production companies nowadays, but few take as active a role in producing their films as Clint does and has throughout most of his career.
Logged
KC
Global Moderator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28801


Control ...


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #3 on: September 16, 2011, 09:38:19 PM »

I seem to recall reading a piece in the New York Times a few years back about actors who have their own production companies. I can't find that one, but here's a recent piece that mentions some of them:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/movies/stars-and-actors-film-critics-answer-readers-questions.html

Quote
[Manohla Dargis:] Stardom can look cheap in the age of Snooki, but movie stars do still matter at the box office, and a system of sorts exists, even if it doesn’t work like the one that turned Lucille Fay LeSueur into Joan Crawford. Stars no longer have to sign the kind of restrictive contracts under which they, producers, directors and writers once toiled, but instead operate as independents, if ones loaded with dependents. Some of the biggest have their own companies (shingles or banners) and producing deals with the studios. Clint Eastwood’s Malpaso has been at Warner Brothers forever, and Brad Pitt’s Plan B has been at Paramount since B.A. (Before Angie). According to Variety, Lionsgate has just one such deal, but it’s a whopper: Tyler Perry.

The reigning box office king is Leonardo DiCaprio, who became, according to Forbes, a $77 million man after back-to-back 2010 blockbusters: “Shutter Island” and “Inception.” In 2001 he started his company, Appian Way, as part of a venture with Initial Entertainment Group, which bankrolled Martin Scorsese’s “Gangs of New York.”

In the same article (Times film critics answer readers' questions) there's also a bit about Andy Robinson's portrayal of Scorpio and how it may have affected his career.

The Times article sent me to a feature in Variety that lists production companies' deals with studios. As you can see, many of these companies are owned by more or less prominent actors.

http://images1.variety.com/graphics/photos/_specials_arts/facts-on-pacts-2011.pdf
Logged
herofan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 276



View Profile Email
« Reply #4 on: September 17, 2011, 06:50:43 AM »

I had a thread on Malpaso before, so I don't mean to drive it in the ground, but exactly how does a production company give you control if you have to rely on the major studio for backing?  What if they don't like the movie and say "no"?  How does that put you in a different boat than if you didn't have a production company?

I don't mean to appear so dumb, but all this movie business technicalities can be confusing.  I recently read various articles about how movies and actors make money, and it is confusing.  If I understood correctly, actors can get money from "net points", but studios can manipulate the books so that a movie doesn't appear to make money on paper even if it is a blockbuster like "Harry Potter."

I also read where Tom Hanks sometimes waived his salary, yet it was still figured into the budget and he worked on percent, blah, blah,  ??? ???

It doesn't seem like making a movie is a simple process.
Logged
KC
Global Moderator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28801


Control ...


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #5 on: September 17, 2011, 08:45:54 PM »

To oversimplify somewhat: If a production company wants to make a movie, and they have a deal with a studio, the studio supplies the financing, and the production company provides the nuts and bolts of the production: they'll get the script, the crew and the "talent" together, and then go out and actually shoot the picture. The studio's physical facilities will then also be available: equipment, sound stages, post-production facilities, etc., and the studio will arrange the publicity and distribution. At least that's how it seems to work with Malpaso: the artistic decisions are in the hands of the production company, and the studio handles the purely physical and financial stuff. Or sometimes the studio might already own the project, and offer it to the production company to bring to fruition, with the rest happening as I just outlined.

And yes, it can happen that a studio doesn't want to back a project, despite a "deal." Then the production company may either have to make compromises, or look elsewhere for financial backing. This has actually happened to Clint at times in recent years, for instance on Million Dollar Baby:

Quote
But the green light still doesn't come easy for a 74-year-old pro who has called the Warner lot his professional home since 1975, and has now produced, directed and/or starred in some 30 pictures for the company since "Dirty Harry" in 1971. When Mr. Eastwood proposed his "Million Dollar Baby," the studio balked, citing audience aversion to boxing pictures, just as it had first turned down "Mystic River," a crime-and-friendship story that was first deemed too dark. Warner executives only budged when an outside financier, Lakeshore Entertainment, agreed to share the cost.

Very good article, by the way, the whole thing is worth a read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/13/movies/oscars/13carr.html

As for "net points," this Wikipedia article on "Hollywood accounting" has a couple of flags on it, but it's still enlightening:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
Logged
herofan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 276



View Profile Email
« Reply #6 on: September 18, 2011, 05:54:24 PM »

To oversimplify somewhat: If a production company wants to make a movie, and they have a deal with a studio, the studio supplies the financing, and the production company provides the nuts and bolts of the production: they'll get the script, the crew and the "talent" together, and then go out and actually shoot the picture. The studio's physical facilities will then also be available: equipment, sound stages, post-production facilities, etc., and the studio will arrange the publicity and distribution. At least that's how it seems to work with Malpaso: the artistic decisions are in the hands of the production company, and the studio handles the purely physical and financial stuff. Or sometimes the studio might already own the project, and offer it to the production company to bring to fruition, with the rest happening as I just outlined.

And yes, it can happen that a studio doesn't want to back a project, despite a "deal." Then the production company may either have to make compromises, or look elsewhere for financial backing. This has actually happened to Clint at times in recent years, for instance on Million Dollar Baby:

Very good article, by the way, the whole thing is worth a read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/13/movies/oscars/13carr.html

Thanks for the info, KC.  That's what i was wondering about; just the basic duties of each.

As for "net points," this Wikipedia article on "Hollywood accounting" has a couple of flags on it, but it's still enlightening:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
Logged
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
 




C L I N T E A S T W O O D . N E T