A farewell to Silver Screen Legends?
I just wanted to put a little something together in regards to a story that broke earlier in the year, and in regards to David Zaslav who became Chief Executive Officer and President of Warner Bros. David Zaslav immediately turned heads right out the gate, chastising executives over green lighting Clint’s neo-Western Cry Macho.
Warner Bros. executives conceded they had doubted the movie would turn a profit, people familiar with the meeting said. Why, Mr. Zaslav asked, was ‘Cry Macho’ made if they had reservations? When they replied that Mr. Eastwood had given the studio many hits and never delivered a movie late or over budget, he answered: We don’t owe anyone any favours. ‘It’s not show friends, it’s show business,’ he told them.
Yes, making tough calls is why Zaslav was placed in the top seat. But aiming his fire at Eastwood, of all people, strikes numerous industry observers as odd and rather short-sighted. Whilst it’s not my thing, the entire scrapping of the Batgirl project still baffles me - I thought superhero cinema was still in favour?
But lately, people have aired their opinions to me, and the general feeling seems to be one and the same - let him do what he does best. I doubt very much that Clint has too many projects left before giving it up completely and retiring, and (considering his track record) the chances are whatever he chooses to do will probably turn a profit.
But I just wonder if Clint is having second thoughts? It’s been a while, and still there is no word of any new project. And of course, it was only last month that legendary actor/ director Woody Allen announced that his latest film (currently in production) will indeed be his last before retiring. I just wonder if the business has changed to such an extent that the entire process of film-making has simply become far less ‘appealing’, even to such seasoned directors as Eastwood and Allen.
It was heavily rumoured that Clint had pitched a new movie to the Zaslav-headed Warners and was quickly rejected. It was further rumoured that a leaked conference call implied that, despite their five-decade allegiance to Clint, Warners actually didn’t owe him any favours.
Eastwood has been making movies with Warners for over 50 years now and it’s proven to be one of the most trust-worthy and long-lasting director/studio partnerships in the industry. But I have to say, it’s the attitude of the suites that have really shifted the dynamics. If this is what it’s become, I’d say take the business elsewhere. I still have enough faith and truly believe that many other studios would be only too pleased to pick up an Eastwood project and run with it.
But I’m seriously wondering if Clint, at this stage of his life, has finally had enough - does he really need it? If that is the case, then I’d suggest walking away from it and enjoy your time on the golf course.
I really wouldn’t blame him at all.
1 comment:
I think what baffles me is that the movie was released when older audiences were hesitant to go to theaters (and still are to an extent) plus it was available on HBO Max on release date, so why aim their fire on Clint and his film budgeted for $32 million? While it was not my favorite Eastwood film by a longshot, I have little doubt it would have turned a profit had it been released during "normal" times. Just bizarre to make Eastwood the sacrificial lamb for Warner's greater failures.
Post a Comment