Ryan Coogler & Michael B. Jordan vampire film "Sinners"
- Thread starter Dr. Narcisse
- Start date
Dr. Narcisse
Veteran
I hear you breh. However, I think its one of those things where the world building is so good that you could want to see more of it.
If its a bunch of set up for another movie(s) then yea I'll be concerned, However, these are black folks in Hollywood. Nothing is guaranteed. Im sure they are going to just try to make a good movie first and foremost.
Dr. Narcisse
Veteran
This backstory of those movies should have been signs it wasnt gonna work.
WB had ownership rights of it. And they were going to make a movie regardless if the OG directors came back So one of them did and decided to make a movie trolling Hollywood about wanting sequels.
MK, should have known something was up when the game creator didnt fukk with it. And of course James Wan should have just directed it himself iinstead of giving it to some first time director.
Dont know who its with but Im kinda excited for the new Street Fighter. Dudes who made Talk to Me are making it.
God Of Art
TheColi's Favorite Artist
I'm yelling yall...I can write a better movie than half these hacks. Esp how I do the openings. I was born for this shyt. I am an artistic maverick.
And that’s my problem with it being with Warner brothers. They don’t have the best track record with franchises or sequels
steadyrighteous
Veteran
A lot of you guys complaining about this being a potential franchise can’t see the forest for the trees, because word is that his deal includes a kicker that after 25 years the rights to the IP revert back to Coogler and his production company.
So what that means is if this does well, spawns new movies, TV shows, anime spin offs etc. it’ll be black owned or majority black owned and not solely owned by WB with Coogler only getting EP credit and EP financial packages.
That’s unheard of. Nobody who starts a potential franchise with a studio owns it. I think the only person who has this sort of power and control over their work in Hollywood is JK Rowling, who has almost complete say over everything that gets made with the Harry Potter name on it, and things don’t move until she OKs them.
So what that means is if this does well, spawns new movies, TV shows, anime spin offs etc. it’ll be black owned or majority black owned and not solely owned by WB with Coogler only getting EP credit and EP financial packages.
That’s unheard of. Nobody who starts a potential franchise with a studio owns it. I think the only person who has this sort of power and control over their work in Hollywood is JK Rowling, who has almost complete say over everything that gets made with the Harry Potter name on it, and things don’t move until she OKs them.
Dr. Narcisse
Veteran
Im starting to think the breh who said Jonathan Majors was going to be in it is right. Probably said fukk it just make MBJ both characters.
Good for him to challenge himself though.
Good for him to challenge himself though.
Bryan Danielson
Jmare007 x Bryan Danielson x JLova = King Ghidorah
$5500 each to my brothers
Get that checkbook ready and I want add @Nero Christ too
A before any does the what he talking bout thing, just read the Gotdamn thread
Dr. Narcisse
Veteran
Yep. Making it clear for those that dont get it.
| Ryan Coogler’s 25-Year Plan |
| Is the ‘Black Panther’ director’s new deal with Warner Bros.—wherein the copyright for his next project, with Michael B. Jordan, will revert back to him after 25 years—part of a new ownership trend in Hollywood? Or did Coolger just pitch the right executives at the right time? |
If you missed it, the Black Panther and Creed filmmaker has been shopping a project with Michael B. Jordan, his frequent collaborator. It’s a period genre film, supposedly with vampires, or the undead, or something, and I’m told Jordan will play twins—similar to what Tom Hardy did in that 2015 movie Legend. With the help of Coogler’s and Jordan’s publicists, the trades hyped this as one of those “hot packages” that sparked a “bidding frenzy.” On Wednesday, Warner Bros. landed the project for a little over $75 million.
I’m less interested in the money—good for Coogler and Jordan, the rare A-level filmmaker and star tandem who are both under 40—though it’s nice to see an original project generate that level of interest from theatrical distributors. What I am interested in, however, was barely mentioned in the news coverage: Coogler’s ability to secure ownership of the film as part of his deal. It’s a ways off—according to two sources, the copyright will revert to Coogler and his Proxima Media after 25 years—but the key fact is: In the late 2040s, Coogler or his heirs will own the movie.
This term was apparently very important to Coogler—and a dealbreaker for several bidders. He told studios it was a personal thing; he wanted to know that he’ll eventually have this asset to give to his kids. (His rep declined to comment.) But it’s also potentially very lucrative, and something studios—which, after all, are valued largely on their libraries—absolutely avoid.
Let’s say a well-known library film generates $3 million or $4 million per year via TV and streaming licenses, electronic sell-through, and other revenue. (I’m generalizing.) A top filmmaker might get 10 percent or 20 percent of this ancillary revenue, depending on his or her deal. But if the filmmaker owns the film and then farms it out to a studio to license for, let’s say, a 20 percent distribution fee, he or she keeps 80 percent of that revenue. And then, potentially, the filmmaker can sell it someday for a windfall. Obviously a film will generate less revenue in year 25 than it does in year two or three, but some old films still throw off surprising cash. That’s why studios draw a line in the sand on ownership.
Streamers, of course, care a bit less about this because they are less concerned with downstream revenue. A filmmaker might be able to sell a movie to an Amazon or Apple as a so-called “one picture license” for five years and then get it back. But when negotiating with a traditional studio, talent reps assume the studio will demand to own it.
There are exceptions, of course—usually for talent who bring outside money to the table. Mel Gibson made hundreds of millions of dollars by self-financing The Passion of the Christ. M. Night Shyamalan and Matthew Vaughn own or co-own some of their films. Andrew MacDonald, producer of the original 2002 zombie hit 28 Days Later, recently got the movie back from Disney’s Searchlight division and promptly sold it to Sony, along with a new sequel, 28 Years Later, that will be made with Danny Boyle and Alex Garland directing and writing, respectively, and Peter Rice, the executive behind the original at Searchlight, producing. MacDonald owned the rights, so he could move the old movie and the new project to a new studio.
Quentin Tarantino famously has either a 20-year or 25-year reversion in his directing deals, a function of his bankability and the legacy of his arrangements with Miramax and then The Weinstein Co. He actually got both Kill Bill and Jackie Brown back this year, I’m told, and Lionsgate distributes them for a fee. So even though Sony was the sole financier of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, the precedent was there for the studio head, Tom Rothman, to hold his nose and agree to the same reversion. I’m pretty confident in saying Rothman would never do it otherwise, and indeed, I’m told he initially wanted the Coogler project but balked at the ownership demand. (Sony declined to comment.)
Hopefully brehs get it now.
Dr. Narcisse
Veteran
Enough tapdancing breh. Just enjoy the Super Bowl.$5500 each to my brothers
Get that checkbook ready and I want add @Nero Christ too
A before any does the what he talking bout thing, just read the Gotdamn thread
Bryan Danielson
Jmare007 x Bryan Danielson x JLova = King Ghidorah
Red Shield
Global Domination
shyt was so bad I doubt WB is gonna bother with anything Matrix related for another 20yrs
010101
C L O N E*0690//////
everything is war including entertainment*
NZA
LOL
maybe this will be what i hoped lovecraft country would have been...