Can%20Hollywood%u2019s%20Internal%20Development%20Decline%20Be%20Reversed%3F%20-%20Puck

Can%20Hollywood%u2019s%20Internal%20Development%20Decline%20Be%20Reversed%3F%20-%20Puck Not so much anymore. David Beaubaire, a producer (Fatherhood, The Night Agent) who served two decades in executive jobs at Warner Bros., DreamWorks, Paramount, and Sony, recently shared some new data he’d collected on what movies are getting made. I was surprised by the answer to the question I just posed above: It’s 10 percent. Only one-tenth of the 505 movies he tracked—a comprehensive (or near-comprehensive) list of live-action, English-language films that have been released or are set for release in the U.S. by the nine major studios/streamers* from 2022 through 2026—actually came from their company’s internal development slate. The rest were I.P. plays, movies financed or packaged elsewhere, titles that were acquired or part of an output deal, or stuff made by a studio-owned specialty division. Spec scripts? They almost never progress to a greenlight. Original OWAs (open writing assignments)? Super rare. “The big takeaway is, the movie business does not work the way people think it does, or the way it used to,” Beaubaire told me yesterday. “In that, there is an opportunity to be seized.” Going further into the data, which Beaubaire compiled over the past few months with colleagues at his Sunset Lane Media, here’s the breakdown of those 505 studio/streamer greenlights: 31 percent of the films were acquired by the studio/streamer with some level of greenlight commitment due to an existing talent relationship (i.e., an overall or first-look deal, like Jordan Peele’s at Universal or J.J. Abrams’ at Warner Bros.), or in a competitive situation (i.e., a fully packaged auction or “cook-off,” like when studio heads were invited to Chris Nolan’s house in the Hollywood Hills to read Oppenheimer and make him an offer). 27 percent of films were I.P. adaptations—meaning sequels, prequels, remakes, or movies based on preexisting properties, like books, toys, or games. 24 percent were financed by outside entities and were either acquired (like Netflix paying $20 million for Hitman at TIFF) or distributed by the studio (like Legendary Pictures’ Dune at Warners). 9 percent were made by specialty divisions under the studio banner (Searchlight for Disney, Focus for Universal, Sony Classics, etcetera). greenlight slide 4 By the Book Maybe you’re not surprised. This study doesn’t include more originals-focused indies, like A24 and Neon, which would have skewed the numbers. Plus, the traditional studio system has been creatively broken for years now—turned for the most part into a brand-management business and distribution system for development risks taken elsewhere. At the same time, the three major streaming platforms that make big-budget original films often prefer to shell out enormous sums for pre-developed, prepackaged movies with A-level talent, like the current Wolfs or The Instigators at Apple. They pay a premium for the privilege of working with Clooney and Pitt, or Ben and Matt, but they don’t have much creative control over what actually gets made. As a result, the streamers, with notable exceptions, often feel like kids playing dress-up in their mother’s closet—the pieces are all nice and expensive, but the inexperience shows, and the finished look can feel only about 80 percent there. Remember, studios used to develop most movies internally and cast filmmakers and stars. But they’ve largely stopped doing that on non-franchise projects. Instead, 90 percent of the films that got made had talent attached when the studio/streamer became involved: 77 percent had directors attached before the studio/streamer was approached. 58 percent had actors attached from inception. 45 percent had both attached. greenlight slide 6 Similarly, most source material for movies is preexisting. But when considering films that come from inside and outside the studio/streamer, the vast majority are actually not sequels or spinoffs. In fact, excluding books, only about a third were based on preexisting I.P.: 36 percent were original ideas presented as a pitch or script to whatever company first bought them. 33 percent were sequels, prequels, spinoffs, or based on an existing toy or game I.P. 31 percent were adaptations of literary materials or true events. (Yes, books are I.P., but often they are not widely known I.P., and many are optioned before they’re published.) greenlight slide 8 The Development Riddle So… who cares? Movies are a business of talent and material, and studios have simply become better at setting up pipelines for both. But producers like Beaubaire would argue that studios, and especially streamers, are neglecting the development phase of the filmmaking process. Studios used to carry dozens of on-set producers who were paid to push projects through the pipeline to a greenlight, then act as quality control through to the finished product. These days, producers on the lots are rare, and there’s much less development overall. Even though a studio pipeline might contain 300 to 600 projects at various stages, from active development to turnaround, nearly all of those projects now simply peter out and die. The reality these days is the studios don’t have the resources or the inclination to focus much on internal development when effective franchise management and remaining competitive in bidding wars is valued most. Think about it: If you’re overseeing $500 million worth of movies in production, plus $500 million worth of movies that are set to release, you likely don’t have time to read the third draft of some project one of your executives is developing. You’re just gonna buy the big A-list package that’s sitting on your desk, waiting for a yes. Like he said, Beaubaire sees an opening. He’s now positioning Sunset Lane, which has some outside backing, to take on development of original film projects that the studios aren’t: smaller books, true stories, commercial ideas. He wants to engage talent early in the process. To hustle. To reverse the thinking that development is too often wasted money. “Development … is the thing that everything relies on, but it gets the least amount of attention at a studio,” he told me. “It’s really hard to generate, let alone sustain, the level of enthusiasm you need for a project over a long period of time within a large organization that is, by nature, risk-averse.” He’s not alone here. Companies like MRC (American Fiction), Fifth Season (80 for Brady), Artists Equity (Air), and others are packaging projects in place of the studios and selling them to the highest bidders. It can be a good business and lead to better payouts for the talent involved. For the most part, though, these outfits are financiers, bringing money to the table. Beaubaire wants to act more like a consulting firm for creativity and development, partnering with studios to shepherd projects and adding value and urgency to the development process, thus bringing producers back into the equation. It’s not a bad rebranding idea for the value of producers. Risk-aversion and the perception of a higher bar for theaters has forced the traditional studios into a cycle of pre-branded spectacles. The goal, for now, is “familiar surprise,” as NBCUniversal’s Donna Langley said today at a conference. But studios are so focused on extending their existing franchises that they neglect to develop new ones. As my colleague Scott Mendelson likes to point out, Disney hasn’t created an original live-action movie franchise since National Treasure exactly 20 years ago, right before Bob Iger took over. Two decades. As evidenced this year by original successes like Anyone But You and Longlegs, the audience for original, commercial films is still there. And streaming services would benefit from, frankly, better movies, especially given what they are paying for them. If the studios and streamers actually want to generate a new generation of franchises, maybe reorienting the business around development will lead to more of them.