The documentary, "Empire of Dreams", tells of how George Lucas built his franchise, and it says that he got 20th Century Fox to let him own the rights to the franchise, which allowed him to become the mogul he is now. In fact, Fox was apparently so upset at this that it let Alan Ladd Jr, the President at the time, go, because the company felt Ladd had been too generous.
The situation with J. K. Rowlings seems different. According to Wiki, she continued to own the rights to Harry Potter, which has allowed her to become a billioinairess.
?url? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._K._Rowling#Harry_Potter_films?/url?
Her situation is apparently the same as what is happening in the comic book industry, where publishing houses (like Dark Horse) have been attracting talent by allowing them to own the rights to their characters. This has been a competitive threat to Marvel and DC, and, of course, Marvel did go bankrupt at one point.
So I'm wondering if the film industry has changed from the 1970's. Now, if a producer has an idea for a new franchise, will the majors provide funding and let him own the rights?
The decision on who owns the rights is and will be different
for each property.
Many times the studio doesn't know what it has - Star Wars
being the perfect example - so they let the rights go to save
some up front money. When Warner approached Rowlings for
the book rights she was already a best selling offer so she
was in the drivers seat. Today a producer with an idea for a
franchise may not be able to own all rights and have a major
studio pay for everything. The moguls are more savvy now
than they were in the 1970's - they want to own all rights for
everything. Fox had no idea that Lucas' little space opera
would spawn a franchise.
However if a producer had a project the studio wanted badly
then they are in the drivers seat and can negotiate the deal
from a point of strength. Or a producer could fly under the
radar and have a project that no one thinks will be popular
(Star Wars), keep all the rights and then surprise them with
a huge hit.
=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)
=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)
From what you say, there could be a range of choices in ownership, which is good.
James Cameron's Avatar may be one example. It seems that News Corp/Fox owns part of it, and private equity firms owns part of it. I presume Mr Titanic also has a share. This is to spread the risk in a very expensive franchise.
?url? http://hollywoodwiretap.com/?module=news&action=story&id=42243?/url?
Is there a standard for a new producer with an idea? Say someone who has a plot for a space opera with ... you know the rest. If the idea is untested, but the producer has some clout, what's the standard deal?
quote:
Originally posted by Aspiring mogul
Is there a standard for a new producer with an idea?
Yes. The studio buys all rights and pays for the film. The new producer
may get a little on the back end. If the producer has some clout, the
producer may be able to use that clout to get a better deal.
=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)
And J. K. Rowlings, of course, had clout - still has. So does James Cameron, except he, like Fox, doesn't want to take all the risk so they share ownership.
So the obvious answer to my query is that a producer must get some clout, and so bargain from (some) strength. George Lucas used his clout from Star Wars to get Paramount to finance the Indiana Jones films but let him own this second franchise.
Exactly.
The Fox/Star Wars/Ladd story must include "American Graffiti".
Every studio in town wanted another "cars and kids" movie from
Lucas. He used that leverage to get his space opera made. The only
exec willing was Ladd. Even Universal which owned the "American
Graffiti" sequel rights wouldn't play ball with the new, hot
director. So Lucas agreed to make a "cars and kids" movie for Fox
if they would finance his space opera. Ladd and Fox thought it was
a stupid movie that would play for 2 weeks (that was contracted)
before the summer movie season then disappear. Then they would get
their 'cars and kids" from the Oscar nominated director. So when
this new director asked for merchandise rights they gave it - in
1975 movie merchandise was very limited - and when he wanted to
keep the sequel rights they gave that, too. Because they knew sci-fi
in the 70's was not a profitable genre and they knew the movie
would be out of theaters by June, never to be heard of again. All
they wanted was the "cars and kids" movie.
So in addition to a producer needing some clout (past success) it
helps to be a total visionary. Of course both are nearly
impossible which is why the Lucas and Rowlings stories are so
interesting. We are not talking about the novelist who write a
book with the dream of a franchise that never sold, or the
producer with that great franchise idea that no studio would
touch. And there are far more of those stories.
So an aspiring mogul like you needs to not only have the clout but
you need the right project that the studios don?t think is the
right project but turns into the right project.
In other words you need to walk into a forest and point at the
tree the lighting will strike two years before there is a storm.
That way you will get everything you want.
=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)
I was watching "Empire of Dreams" last night (again), and some things stand out. What you said about the tree in the forest resonates with me too.
Which "cars and kids" movie did Lucas make for Fox?
He didn't.
That space opera that Fox thought would be out of theaters by June 1977
took off. They immediately wanted another space opera and regretted they
had given up the rights. Lucas was in the drivers seat. Despite what that doc
states, I do not believe Ladd was fired because of "Star Wars". He left Fox to
form his own company after the great success of "Star Wars" and "Alien".
=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)
Oh, OK.
Actually, I understand even George Lucas didn't think it would take off - in fact, he was apparently planning for a series of low-budget sci-fi action flicks. The early novel, "Splinter in the Mind's Eye", was one such example of what he wanted.
In a similar vein, many studios are playing it safe these days, which makes sense considering the general economy. And, given the timidity displayed in the last few Star Trek movies and the last TV series, there has to be opportunities for a new, good space opera - especially since the Star Wars franchise has been reduced to getting Greedo to shoot Han Solo first.
I think there are opportunities, not just in SF but other genres.
quote:
Originally posted by certified instigator
The Fox/Star Wars/Ladd story must include "American Graffiti".
Every studio in town wanted another "cars and kids" movie from
Lucas. He used that leverage to get his space opera made. The only
exec willing was Ladd. Even Universal which owned the "American
Graffiti" sequel rights wouldn't play ball with the new, hot
director. So Lucas agreed to make a "cars and kids" movie for Fox
if they would finance his space opera. Ladd and Fox thought it was
a stupid movie that would play for 2 weeks (that was contracted)
before the summer movie season then disappear. Then they would get
their 'cars and kids" from the Oscar nominated director. So when
this new director asked for merchandise rights they gave it - in
1975 movie merchandise was very limited - and when he wanted to
keep the sequel rights they gave that, too. Because they knew sci-fi
in the 70's was not a profitable genre and they knew the movie
would be out of theaters by June, never to be heard of again. All
they wanted was the "cars and kids" movie.
How do you know this? If you got it from a book or documentary, I'd love to check it out. 🙂
quote:
Originally posted by certified instigator
So an aspiring mogul like you needs to not only have the clout but
you need the right project that the studios don?t think is the
right project but turns into the right project.
Clout may be good enough. Paramount probably figured out Indiana Jones would be a success, but, given George Lucas' success with Star Wars (and keeping in mind his previous accomplishment with American Graffitti), the company probably had no choice if it wanted in on the franchise.
So clout and vision are good, but clout may be all that's needed to get a good deal. The question then is, what kind of clout? That's something for another thread. 🙂
That said, Orion Pictures help fund the first Terminator movie, and it didn't think the movie would succeed. One of Arnie's biographers also said the studio was indifferent to the movie.
?url? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminator?/url?
If so, then why would the company put any money in? Neither James Cameron nor Arnold Schwarzennegger had any clout then, so, if the company didn't think the movie would pay off, why put any money in? Maybe that's why it went bankrupt.
There seems to be a pattern of films or shows that the big companies didn't think would work, but they funded them anyway. That's show biz for you, I guess.
