Speilberg Leaves Dreamworks, Forms New Company

[stockstar1138]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/mo...tml?ref=movies

didn't see this posted. Him and a couple other guys are leaving to form a new compnay.

Oops misspelled Spielberg, mods please fix.

[Joe Cain]

Where's the K in SKG? Sticking with Dreamworks?

[EricJ]

Good, NOW can we stop suing "Spielberg" for Disturbia, just because he was co-owner on a production company that wanted to throw Shia LeBoeuf a disposable multi-picture deal to lock him in for "Transformers"?

(Sheesh, the "Dreamworks <=> Spielberg" thing was almost as annoying as the old "Look what bad Miramax movie Disney is releasing now!" headlines we used to have to go through...)

Originally Posted by Joe Cain

Where's the K in SKG? Sticking with Dreamworks?

If it's the K in ShreK, I believe the word is "Happily going down with the ship..."

[obiwopkenobi62]

Originally Posted by Joe Cain

Where's the K in SKG? Sticking with Dreamworks?

Spielberg
Katzenberg
Geffen
SKG

[quexos]

Spielberg has about 2 billion dollars of personal wealth according to Forbe's richest people chart. Can't he just direct for our enjoyment ? what's the need for him to make yet more money by creating yet more companies ?

[Blu-ray Fanatic]

Its probably not about money, its about doing something constructive. I guess he gets tired of dealing with those stubborn studios who only want money so he's creating his own studio. Thats my theory

[Blu-Ron]

Hey, maybe he'll start doing good movies again like he did in the late 70's early 80's.

[Charles3669]

Originally Posted by Blu-Ron

Hey, maybe he'll start doing good movies again like he did in the late 70's early 80's.

Yeah as opposed to the crap he did in the 90s like Schindlers List and Saving Private Ryan and Jurassic Park.

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by Charles3669

Yeah as opposed to the crap he did in the 90s like Schindlers List and Saving Private Ryan and Jurassic Park.

Congrats... you just broke my Sarcast-o-meter.

Logan

[saprano]

Originally Posted by Charles3669

Yeah as opposed to the crap he did in the 90s like Schindlers List and Saving Private Ryan and Jurassic Park.

wow.

[Big Daddy]

There was a story about Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson in the Los Angeles Times Business section, Friday, September 19, 2008, P.C1. The title of the article was: Amazing Story: A "no" to Spielberg.

"Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson don't hear "no" very often.

But after they submitted a final budget of $130 million for their 3-D animated movie "Tintin," based on the Belgian comic strip, to Universal Pictures, the studio balked. The decision has left the two powerful filmmakers scrambling to find another financial partner.

When even Spielberg and "The Lord of the Rings" director Jackson, who have made some of the biggest blockbusters in history, can't get their movie made, you know something is up in Hollywood."

Information about Tintin:
http://www.darkhorizons.com/news07/070515n.php

[doctorsteve]

Originally Posted by Charles3669

Yeah as opposed to the crap he did in the 90s like Schindlers List and Saving Private Ryan and Jurassic Park.

My hero of the day...

[Joon]

Does this worry anyone that we may not see Jurassic Park, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, E.T., etc. on blu-ray now? Or is this a good thing and make it easier to release these movies now?

[hardcorefrokid]

Originally Posted by Charles3669

Yeah as opposed to the crap he did in the 90s like Schindlers List and Saving Private Ryan and Jurassic Park.

I'm speechless, truly speechless.

[statikcat]

Good now he and Peter Jackson can make those 2 Tintin movies!

[Blu-ray Fanatic]

Originally Posted by statikcat

Good now he and Peter Jackson can make those 2 Tintin movies!

Are you talking about that dog movie called Adventures of Rin Tin Tin?

[Red Hood]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

Congrats... you just broke my Sarcast-o-meter.

Logan

haha

[Riff Magnum]

Originally Posted by quexos

Spielberg has about 2 billion dollars of personal wealth according to Forbe's richest people chart. Can't he just direct for our enjoyment ? what's the need for him to make yet more money by creating yet more companies ?

Cause he can and apparently wants to. I suppose the drive and commitment a person needs to get that rich and successful to begin with, doesn't just go away once their initial goals are reached.
In short he's an evil, american, capitalist greedhead.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Riff Magnum

Cause he can and apparently wants to. I suppose the drive and commitment a person needs to get that rich and successful to begin with, doesn't just go away once their initial goals are reached.
In short he's an evil, american, capitalist greedhead.

No -- he just doesn't risk his own assets to make his films. He's proud of the fact that he does not need to use his own money to make his movies, and rightly so. That's not greed, that's not evil, that's a good man protecting what he's built and earned while creating more films that enrich all of us and bring honor to the words "American filmmaker".

Take your socialist hate and go dangle.

[Riff Magnum]

Whoa horsey!! It's a joke. The poster i was responding to seemed to think just cause someone's rich then they should cease to have any ambition or plans to make more money.