NationStates Jolt Archive

Viacom-owned Paramount has bought Dreamworks SKG (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4519012.stm), out bidding GE owned NBC.

Now, it's hard to think of a company founded by Speilberg, Katzenberg, and Geffen as an 'independent,' with movies like Saving Private Ryan, American Beauty and Gladiator, but it was still a small fish compared to mogul Viacom.

Compared to the Vivindi/Universal merger it's relatively small, but even that merger wasn't big enough to beat out Viacom in a bidding war.

What does this mean to you? Generally not a whole lot, I mean you can all continue to live your lives, but it does mean that you'll be fed from largely the same spoon, a trend that has been on the march for a while.

What can it mean that even Speilberg, Katzenberger and Geffen can't survive without being consumed, what does it say about independent voices?

It doesn't say anything about independent voices. There is still a good and growing market in independent film. In fact, in the last few years we have seen a surprising resurgence in a branch of independent film that was once shunned even by independent film buffs. I am speaking of the documentary film. Thanks in part to Michael Moore's work, we have seen a resurgence in documentary film making of increasingly higher quality. The last few years have seen movies like the following push documentary film making to new heights: March of the Penguins, Born into Brothels, Dogtown and Z-boys, Riding Giants, Mad Hot Ballroom. It seems independent film is expanding, not diminishing. If anything, this merger says a lot about the capitalist model, but it says nothing about independent voices.

What does this mean to you? Generally not a whole lot, I mean you can all continue to live your lives, but it does mean that you'll be fed from largely the same spoon, a trend that has been on the march for a while.

What can it mean that even Speilberg, Katzenberger and Geffen can't survive without being consumed, what does it say about independent voices?

Don't watch Hollywood. Tada!

What can it mean that even Speilberg, Katzenberger and Geffen can't survive without being consumed, what does it say about independent voices?

What it means is that even though Spielberg has massive assets, he can't control spending on a movie project enough to avoid borrowing huge amounts of money that send his company into massive debt.

He has to make pet projects that don't necessarily make very much money. Some do, but most don't.

Keep losing money and your company is eaten.

If you want to see a company that can survive without being consumed (in fact, it's the exact opposite), look at Pixar. You have to not only be good at making movies, you have to be able to run a business.

It doesn't say anything about independent voices. There is still a good and growing market in independent film. In fact, in the last few years we have seen a surprising resurgence in a branch of independent film that was once shunned even by independent film buffs. I am speaking of the documentary film. Thanks in part to Michael Moore's work, we have seen a resurgence in documentary film making of increasingly higher quality. The last few years have seen movies like the following push documentary film making to new heights: March of the Penguins, Born into Brothels, Dogtown and Z-boys, Riding Giants, Mad Hot Ballroom. It seems independent film is expanding, not diminishing. If anything, this merger says a lot about the capitalist model, but it says nothing about independent voices.
I would have to agree that there is a rise in the documentary, and that is encouraging (as a documentary film maker, very encouraging...) However, many of those films are still under the umbrella of the larger groups-Miramax (if it still exists, I lost track) is a Disney company, Sony Picture classics, FOX Searchlight and Warner Independents all speak for themselves as to who they are owned by. Most all of those breakouts will be found in that grouping.

The success of those documentaries is a good counterpoint, that's for sure-but even they are being absorbed into the same tent.

I would have to agree that there is a rise in the documentary, and that is encouraging (as a documentary film maker, very encouraging...) However, many of those films are still under the umbrella of the larger groups-Miramax (if it still exists, I lost track) is a Disney company, Sony Picture classics, FOX Searchlight and Warner Independents all speak for themselves as to who they are owned by. Most all of those breakouts will be found in that grouping.

The success of those documentaries is a good counterpoint, that's for sure-but even they are being absorbed into the same tent.

But they arent being produced by the big companies, they are being produced independently and distributed through the big companies. They are still independent productions filmed by independent voices who found a major distributor willing to push their independent work after gaining acclaim in the independent film circuit.

What it means is that even though Spielberg has massive assets, he can't control spending on a movie project enough to avoid borrowing huge amounts of money that send his company into massive debt.

He has to make pet projects that don't necessarily make very much money. Some do, but most don't.

Keep losing money and your company is eaten.

If you want to see a company that can survive without being consumed (in fact, it's the exact opposite), look at Pixar. You have to not only be good at making movies, you have to be able to run a business.
Pixar has a partnership with Disney, however. And most studios run a low precentage of success, relying on breakaway films to cover them, which in reality is a large part of the problem in general as well.

But they arent being produced by the big companies, they are being produced independently and distributed through the big companies. They are still independent productions.
That's just a matter of what part of the hose you put the clamp on.

Pixar has a partnership with Disney, however. And most studios run a low precentage of success, relying on breakaway films to cover them, which in reality is a large part of the problem in general as well.

Had a partnership. You'll recall that Pixar is now an independent company, and managed to escape Disney because they were much better at making movies and making money than Disney.

Well, there's always a bigger fish.

Had a partnership. You'll recall that Pixar is now an independent company, and managed to escape Disney because they were much better at making movies and making money than Disney.
Though that has a lot more to do with Disney imploding that it does with Pixar, and Pixar hasn't neccisarily struck out on their own so much as become a much bigger guerilla to Disney.

Granted, Dreamworks SKG was far from being 'the voice of the little man' and was a vanity company to be generous. And this is really small beans compared, as I had said, to the Vivindi/Universal sale. It's just part of the smaller and smaller numbers producing and controlling what gets out. It's not the end, or the begining of the end-just one of the billboards along the way.