Re: A Conversation with Universal Studios Home Entertainment
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Andy_MT
wonder why universal is in this situation ?
|
Like MGM, it seems like they've been changing owners every few years, with NBC the first situation that was actually stable, deep-pocketed, and interested in concentrating on film (some of their previous owners were far more interested in Universal's music holdings).
I think it also comes down to a bit of bad luck, too - a few years ago, it seemed like they were trying too hard to build a
Star Wars or James Bond-style megafranchise with tons of cross-media tie-ins:
Van Helsing,
Hulk,
Chronicles of Riddick (they expected that to be HUGE: Before it opened, they were talking three movies and a tie-in series on Sci-Fi along with the game and animated prequels they released),
Serenity. All of them were some sort of commercial disappointment or outright disaster, but if
Riddick had lived up to half its expectations, for instance, the second/third
Riddick movie could have been getting the press that
Casino Royale is getting right now. But, these things apparently can't be forced; they have to just happen.
In the end, only the
Bourne movies really managed to have legs, and they didn't have a new one last year.
Also, I think Spielberg and Zemeckis no longer working on the lot is hurting them in more ways than just not having the films they direct - Uni doesn't really have any production partners right now who do what Bruckheimer does for Disney or Joel Silver does for Warner.