Dreamworks and Paramount Headed to Divorce Court?

[AaronSCH]

According to the New York Times, Dreamworks is looking for a new home. No more speculation, they are actually in negotiations with NBC, Universal. The animation wing would remain with Paramount but the film division is looking towards Universal or maybe even Fox when the contract with Paramount expires.

Wouldn't it be nice to see Sony or Fox grab Dreamworks away from Paramount? They are unhappy (especially Spielberg) and want a new home. It has been reported that they prefer to be partnered with Universal or Fox. I believe a partnership with Universal would even be good for Blu-ray. We know Spielberg prefers the format and he just might have the persuasive power needed to get Universal to at least go neutral. They hold the distribution rights to some of his best work. Lets see, "Jaws," "Always," "1941," "E.T. The Extraterrestrial," "Schindler's List," Saving Private Ryan," "Artificial Intelligence" and "Jurrasic Park." I think Dreamworks return to Universal could mark the beginning of the end for their HD DVD exclusivity.

Read the full article from the November 17, 2007 edition of The New York Times here: Discontented, DreamWorks Is in Talks to Join NBC

[Teazle]

Originally Posted by AaronSCH

According to reports, Dreamworks is looking for a new home.

Ordinarily I'd offer to help but there's no room in my back garden for their soundstages.

[richard lichtenfelt]

Dreamworks Animation is not owned by Paramount!

http://www.nobosh.com/Article/Spielb...reamWorks/692/
http://businessweek.com/print/bwdail...719_311987.htm

"What's more, Spielberg could set up an entirely new company called, yes, DreamWorks. That's because DreamWorks Animation, which was spun out of the main DreamWorks studio, controls the name. (Paramount distributes Shrek and other animated films produced by DreamWorks Animation but doesn't own them.)"
"Geffen, who advises Spielberg on business matters, made sure Spielberg could take back DreamWorks if the relationship went south. Meanwhile, Hollywood insiders say other studios already have expressed interest in working with Spielberg and a reconstituted DreamWorks."

[AaronSCH]

Richard it looks like the articles were more speculative back in July. But check out the link to the N.Y. Times article in my original post. It says negotiations are actually underway.

[BStecke]

Originally Posted by richard lichtenfelt

Dreamworks Animation is not owned by Paramount!

http://www.nobosh.com/Article/Spielb...reamWorks/692/
http://businessweek.com/print/bwdail...719_311987.htm

Awesome. Indiana Jones as a Blu-ray exclusive? Yes, please!

[AaronSCH]

Originally Posted by BStecke

Awesome. Indiana Jones as a Blu-ray exclusive? Yes, please!

No, that wouldn't happen. Paramount holds the distribution rights to the franchise. But they might have to go neutral for a high definition release since Spielberg-directed films are not under their control.

[ClaytonMG]

I'd like to see them with Fox personally. But that's just for Blu-Ray releases. I know Universal was VERY kind with Spielberg so I wouldn't be surprised if they end up together.... why does that sound funny?

[BStecke]

Originally Posted by AaronSCH

No, that wouldn't happen. Paramount holds the distribution rights to the franchise. But they might have to go neutral for a high definition release since Spielberg-directed films are not under their control.

Ah, nuts, I forgot it was indeed Paramount, not Dreamworks. What about the new one? I don't know if I can handle an HD DVD'd version of Indiana Jones . . . I may just lose my mind.

[w_tanoto]

Originally Posted by richard lichtenfelt

Dreamworks Animation is not owned by Paramount!

http://www.nobosh.com/Article/Spielb...reamWorks/692/
http://businessweek.com/print/bwdail...719_311987.htm

"What's more, Spielberg could set up an entirely new company called, yes, DreamWorks. That's because DreamWorks Animation, which was spun out of the main DreamWorks studio, controls the name. (Paramount distributes Shrek and other animated films produced by DreamWorks Animation but doesn't own them.)"
"Geffen, who advises Spielberg on business matters, made sure Spielberg could take back DreamWorks if the relationship went south. Meanwhile, Hollywood insiders say other studios already have expressed interest in working with Spielberg and a reconstituted DreamWorks."

so that means animated movies are not owned by para, then?

[AaronSCH]

Originally Posted by BStecke

Ah, nuts, I forgot it was indeed Paramount, not Dreamworks. What about the new one? I don't know if I can handle an HD DVD'd version of Indiana Jones . . . I may just lose my mind.

You probably won't have to... I doubt Spielberg will greenlight an HD DVD exclusive. At least I hope not.

[AaronSCH]

Originally Posted by The New York Times

DreamWorks Animation, run by Jeffrey Katzenberg, is an independent company with a deal to have its movies distributed by Paramount until 2012. It would be unaffected by the current talks.

DreamWorks has been a crucial pillar of Paramount’s success this year. DreamWorks was a producer of both “Transformers,” which took in $702 million worldwide, and “Blades of Glory,” which took in $144 million.

We may see "Transformers" on Blu-ray sooner than we thought!

[richard lichtenfelt]

Originally Posted by w_tanoto

so that means animated movies are not owned by para, then?

Correct, Paramount just handles distribution.
Good article AaronSCH.

[GreenScar]

Sorry to burst everyone's bubble here, but the New York Time's article is full of BS (sort of). The writer is being reassigned to the Metro section and has been on book leave for some time (ie. out of the loop)

Here is the real info on this article:

NY Times Reports DreamWorks All Wrong

Today's story in The New York Times would be laughable if it weren't also so inaccurate. The article demonstrates that Sharon Waxman doesn't even know the most rudimentary terms of DreamWorks' contract with Paramount, much less what constitutes the difference between informal talks and formal negotiations in the rarefied circles of Big Media. Worse, the heavily padded piece gets even its few "facts" wrong, which begs the question of why the NY Times ran so prominently an article relying entirely on unnamed sources -- especially when those sources clearly don't know what they're talking about. In fact, my information is that Waxman began her reporting with the misinformation that DreamWorks had just done a deal at Fox. (Waxman left book leave to write this article even though she's moving off the Hollywood beat and will be joining the newspaper's New York City Metro section in January.)

First, the article is wrong to claim that "DreamWorks principals have been negotiating to move their operation to NBC Universal". My own sources confirm that, in fact, DreamWorks is right now contractually not allowed to negotiate with any studio, much less Universal. "No deal, no proposal, no terms, no actual deal discussions have been had because DreamWorks is not allowed to negotiate before April 2008, which is six months before the end of the contract," I'm told.

As for the newspaper's reporting about a "meeting" between Geffen and GE chairman Jeffrey Immelt, NBC Universal boss Jeff Zucker and Universal Studios prez Ron Meyer this coming week, it's a dinner. Simply a dinner. It's being described to me as a "personal rapprochement" between GE and DreamWorks since this will be the first time they've sat together since GE passed on buying the studio back in 2005.

The dinner isn't much different from the October 23rd lunch I reported on when DreamWorks and NBC Universal broke bread together in the very public forum of the Universal Studios commissary. That's where Jeff Zucker and Ron Meyer and Steven Spielberg and Stacey Snider were "all smiles, " I wrote. "Talk about a virtual public announcement that a reunion between the studio and DreamWorks isn't far behind! Look, we all know David Geffen still has to come to terms with GE chairman Jeff Immelt and his NBC Universal errand boy Jeff Zucker, so a deal isn't yet a foregone conclusion. But Uni prez/COO Ron Meyer can facilitate the DreamWorks sale since he's longtime pals with everyone involved (and Snider's ex-boss). And we all know that Spielberg never left the Universal lot (even after DreamWorks' sale to Paramount), and it's the studio where the director has been happiest. He'd like nothing better than to call the place home again, and partner David is in the business of giving Steven what he wants. So stay tuned."

That lunch wasn't a negotiation, and next week's dinner isn't a negotiation, either. To not know the difference is, well, Hollywood 101.

There also has been "no approach to Warner; no approach to Disney." I'm told. The NY Times story is wrong because Spielberg from the very beginning has only been interested in going back to Universal (although he is a big admirer of Tom Rothman, the Fox Filmed Entertainment topper). As for the NYT mention of Fox, the fact is that Geffen is publicly friends with Rupert Murdoch, praises the media tycoon in public, and palled around with Murdoch during a Mediterranean vacation together this summer (see my previous, Anchors Aweigh: Geffen & Murdoch Cruise) where the subject of DreamWorks wanting to get out of Paramount was discussed. But, to the NY Times, that constitutes a "meeting".

Next, The New York Times story doesn't even believe its own sources. It reports the wild figure that Geffen is seeking $600 million to $700 million to make 8 movies a year and to cover overhead costs for Spielberg, Snider and other execs. But in the same paragraph it reverses course and claims the figure is $400, the same amount they all received from Paramount in the 2005 sale. Again, everybody knows that the $400 mil figure is correct.

So where exactly is the news? It seems that it's news to only the NY Times that DreamWorks has been talking to NBC Uni since the summer. Everyone else including me has reported that thoroughly. And since David Geffen speaks to Ron Meyer daily, that doesn't constitute negotiations either. Now, put attorneys in the room or on the phone with them, and that's what could be called a formal negotiation. 'Nuff said.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by Teazle

Ordinarily I'd offer to help but there's no room in my back garden for their soundstages.

Thank you! Thank you so very much. I was wondering where my laugh of the day was going to come from.

[Bullseye]

Didn't Tom Cruise buy United Artist Studios when he left Paramout. Whats to stop Spielberg doing something similar.

[AaronSCH]

No wonder the New York Times' circulation is fast approaching extinction. Can you believe anything printed or broadcast? But Nikki Finke's Deadline Hollywood for God's sake?

[blu2]

Originally Posted by AaronSCH

No wonder the New York Times' circulation is fast approaching extinction. Can you believe anything printed or broadcast? But Nikki Finke's Deadline Hollywood for God's sake?

What's wrong with Nikki?

[Joe Cain]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

Thank you! Thank you so very much. I was wondering where my laugh of the day was going to come from.

This post by Terjyn did it for me:

Some days I wonder what the BDA has to do to actually convince people they know what they are doing.

They have won every single week in the last year.

They have a lifetime sell number 55% higher than HD-DVD, and a yearly number ~90% higher.

When HD-DVD buys up Paramount, they come up with the perfect solution in order to still win the Transformers week.

Yet we STILL get people saying "What is Blu-Ray going to do about X?"

What is Blu-Ray going to do? Win.

Some of you people should never run a business. If a McDonald's opened up across the street from your electronics shop you'd start selling burgers because of the threat to your business...

[GreenScar]

Originally Posted by AaronSCH

No wonder the New York Times' circulation is fast approaching extinction. Can you believe anything printed or broadcast? But Nikki Finke's Deadline Hollywood for God's sake?

From the LA Weekly. Nikki has a very good reputation for breaking stories in the entertainment industry. She know's her stuff. Check out her site sometime. She also reports the truth (not FUD) about the format war.

**Edit

Also, she is pretty specific in where and why the article is wrong. I've been following this story on her site for a while.

[patrick99]

Originally Posted by jasonbird

From the LA Weekly. Nikki has a very good reputation for breaking stories in the entertainment industry. She know's her stuff. Check out her site sometime. She also reports the truth (not FUD) about the format war.

**Edit

Also, she is pretty specific in where and why the article is wrong. I've been following this story on her site for a while.

Frankly, a lot of it seems like quibbling. A dinner, not a meeting?