UA Pushes Back Cruise and Singer's Valkyrie
In retrospect, the MGM-UA idea is starting to look suspect.
When movie star Tom Cruise and partner Paula Wagner had a producing pact at Paramount, a studio controlled the purse strings, with the power to say no.
But put Cruise and Wagner in charge of a studio, and you have Wagner assembling a slate on the one hand, but who does she answer to? Cruise! And CAA (and husband Rick Nicita) are helping to package projects like Lions for Lambs, which was doomed to be a noble failure from the start. From Cruise/Wagner's perspective, coming from big-studio projects, at $35 million Lambs probably seemed like a modest effort. But it was still too expensive for what it was. Its $15 million domestic gross (of which less than half is returned to the studio) didn't cover its marketing costs. It also earned $42 million overseas. The just-launched DVD release will have to bring the movie into the black.
And Valkyrie is a perfect storm. I hear that director Bryan Singer, who has runaway director tendencies anyway, has run up a $90-million negative tab, which probably seemed reasonable to him, since he was coming off the $200-million Superman Returns. Because Cruise had to promote the opening of Lions for Lambs, Singer postponed three key scenes of the Valkyrie shoot, including one big battle sequence in North Africa. (That's when Cruise's Nazi officer loses his right hand, plus two fingers from his left hand, and an eye.)
But pushing the movie's release date back twice has made it look like tainted goods. Cruise and Wagner took a calculated risk pushing it back to February, knowing that an October date was facing off against the looming Presidential election. As soon as Wolfman and the Pink Panther sequel moved off of Presidents Day, UA jumped on the date. Their October weekend usually yields a b.o. of about $55 million, the thinking went, as opposed to Prexy Day, which usually generates about three times that. Singer and Cruise signed off on the promise of a possible Superbowl spot, Berlin Film Fest launch, and a bigger boxoffice bonanza.
They must have known how the town would react. When you say: "No, we don't have a summer movie, it's a fall movie," it really means: "we don't have a commercial movie that will stand up to the competition in wide release, but a quality smart film with possible Oscar potential that needs critics, so we'll go for fall." But push that same movie again into February, and it conjures up All the Kings Men, which was too weak to earn rave reviews and had no identifiable core audience.
The trouble with the whole MGM construct is that a decision about making or picking up a movie for release has to be based on a slew of market equations. Targeting your audience is crucial. Just because Hot Director Bryan Singer and Major Star Tom Cruise want to make a period movie about a Nazi hero doesn't make it worth $90-million (not to mention marketing costs). (Much as I loved it, Alfonso Cuaron's Children of Men shouldn't have cost that much either. Who was the audience?)
MGM CEO Harry Sloan was smart to hire Mary Parent to run MGM. She will run studio production, marketing and distribution. (That's why Rick Sands is out.) She will be damn sure to pick movies she can market. That's half the battle. And Hollywood sat up and took notice of this move, because they know that Parent gets it.






































