Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-fi-fox9aug09" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/enterta inment/news/la-fi-fox9aug09</a>,1,5791537.story?coll=la-headlines-entnews&track=crosspromo >>Fox Filmed Entertainment struck a deal Tuesday with billionaire Philip Anschutz's movie company to take aim at the biggest name in family entertainment: Walt Disney Co. News Corp., Fox's parent, hopes to capitalize on the lucrative family film business and plug a hole in its own lineup by teaming with Walden Media, the producer of the 2005 blockbuster "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe." Walden executives said that after working with Disney on several projects, including "Narnia," they determined that they would be better off with Fox. That's because Fox lacked what its Burbank rival already had: an established family-oriented brand. "Disney needed us less than other companies that are striving to get into that area," said David Weil, chief executive of Anschutz Film Group, Walden's parent company. "Fox recognized that their needs and our interests overlapped. It was a direction they were already pointing in." The deal surprised some in the industry, who figured Disney would be a natural home for Walden. Disney, after all, had a so-called first-look deal that gave the studio dibs on Walden films. That pact expired in 2003. The remaining "Narnia" sequels, "Bridge to Terabithia" and "Prince Caspian," are slated to be released by Disney in 2007 and 2008, respectively. The success of "Narnia," which grossed more than $744 million worldwide, put the 5-year-old Walden on the map. Over the last several months, Walden Media met with four major studios before striking a deal with Fox. <<
Originally Posted By leemac The facts are a little askew in this article (or perhaps just misrepresented): Walden have never had an exclusive deal with Disney. Disney opted to work with Walden on three wide-release movies of varying success: the huge failure that was Around The World in Eighty Days, the minor hit Holes and the B.O. titan that was The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe. I believe they have also co-produced several IMAX movies such as Aliens of the Deep and Ghosts of the Abyss. However they have already made movies outside Disney including Hoot (New Line if I recall), Because of Winn-Dixie and the upcoming Charlotte's Web. Ultimately their strike rate has been very mixed. So I'm not surprised that Disney have not opted for an exclusive deal. Walden are ramping up production under Anschutz and with the decision to cut down on WDP/Touchstone projects in the future it would not fit well to be so reliant on one outside producer (like they used to be with Caravan and Spyglass).
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror It's funny because up till now, they've not SOUGHT an exclusive deal with one single studio, preferring the advantages that come with diverse partners on diverse projects. And yeah, aside from NARNIA, they've had a really mixed bag of projects. Their development people, frankly, are so out in amateurland, it's kind of a joke. There's more than one reason they landed at Fox - it has a lot to do with philosophical (and religious) leanings of certain executives there. Not a bad thing at all... Fox is a good ship, and all they can do with Walden is improve the quality of scripts they develop. Please, no more "Sahara's."
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy Huh, maybe now the next Narnian film will actually be worth seeing. <---very burned by what Walden put out the first time
Originally Posted By TheRedhead Actually, there was an article within the last year where Disney said they wouldn't be seeking any kind of future exclusivity with Walden. So this article doesn't really make sense. It's weird: this is the second LA Times article I've seen in just a few months that has gotten a story like this a little off. Their report on Disney cutting ties with McDonalds was the other one that was off as well.
Originally Posted By leemac I should have also added that the title of this topic is way off-base too (as I can't read the original story I don't know where it came from) as Walden and Fox have created a separate deal to create product. It doesn't affect Walden's ability to shop or develop product at other studios including Disney. Walden haven't "left" Disney as they were never there in the first place.
Originally Posted By DlandDug As far as I know, Disney owns the rights to the Chronicles of Narnia, and will continue making the sequels. (The LATimes writer obviously has no idea what is in the canon!) I am glad that Disney will be continuing the series, as I thought they did a fine job with Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Tisi excerpt says that Walden Media bought the rights.... <a href="http://www.harperteen.com/global_scripts/product_catalog/book_xml.asp?isbn=0060827874&tc=cx" target="_blank">http://www.harperteen.com/glob al_scripts/product_catalog/book_xml.asp?isbn=0060827874&tc=cx</a> And this.... <a href="http://movies.monstersandcritics.com/features/article_1067486.php" target="_blank">http://movies.monstersandcriti cs.com/features/article_1067486.php</a> >>Adamson has no one but himself to blame for getting involved with 'Wardrobe' in the first place. A lifelong fan of the 1950 novel by C.S. Lewis, the first in the author`s seven-book series set in the magical land of Narnia, Adamson initially heard about plans for a film version almost four years ago. The movie rights to the Narnia novels had been acquired by a production company named Walden Media, which contacted the 'Shrek' director about getting its new franchise off the ground. <<
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror Walden has the rights from the Lewis/Grisham Estate. How they are separately delegated to Disney, I'm not sure. If Disney's lawyers did their job, then they tied up all the stories. Right now, I have my doubts. >>>It's weird: this is the second LA Times article I've seen in just a few months that has gotten a story like this a little off.<<< The LA Times gets a lot of things wrong. They make the Boston Globe look like - well, accurate. >>>It doesn't affect Walden's ability to shop or develop product at other studios including Disney. Walden haven't "left" Disney as they were never there in the first place.<<< Wasn't this essentially stated already in post #3?
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror As an aside, for those who don't know... Walden Media was pitched to Philip Anschutz very simply, as an entertainment development company that would ONLY be involved with projects that fell into a very narrow corridor of criteria: Projects based on books. Projects based on famous "characters" in public domain. Projects that featured actual heroic figures in history, particularly the history of the United States (but there's a project about a British Missionary/Reformer in the works, I believe). Part of their strategy is to also look for NEW, emerging book series to acquire and develop, to co-produce with other studios. But you probably won't see them creating anything "new" for a while. The business plan was pitched and sold to Anschutz, in the span of a short lunch.
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy <I thought they did a fine job with Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.> I think we both know we have to agree to disagree, but I'm curious Doug what you have against "The Horse and His Boy"? (you said in another thread you weren't looking forward to that film)
Originally Posted By DlandDug Oh, I like all the Chronicles. Horse and His Boy is just so outside the canon that I feel it could wait until the others are done first.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Maybe they should do "Horse and His Boy" and "Magician's Nephew" as direct to DVD movies. Since the Pevensy children only play a small part in the first one (and you could probably use the actors who played them as adults for those parts), they can shoot them simultaneously with other features, using a different director and crew.
Originally Posted By markedward I like Walden, certainly in theory and occasionally in practice. I like the idea of what they do, and I certainly like the material they're working with. But how exactly the people who did Because of Winn Dixie and Holes also did Around the World in Eighty Days, I can't imagine. My guess it was meant to be their blockbuster. Every serious star does an occasional blockbuster to pay for their kid's trustfund. I'm guessing they thought a Jackie Chan action comedy would bring in mega numbers, enough to pay for a few years of Winn Dixies. Whoops. I agree with the people who call their record inconsistent. I like their small movies about great small books. But I don't much care for their track record on turning epic books into epic movies. They're not alone. There are a lot of books that turn into giant action sequences when they become movies - some like Around the World in Eighty Days clearly flop, and some like The Lord of the Rings sort of pull it off. Anyway, I like Walden, and will continue to watch them with interest.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror ^^^ To answer your question "how exactly...?" They acquire rights to various literary properties and develop other ideas based on history or whatever, hoping throughout to draw top-level talent to the films that come of those various properties. Sometimes they end up with Andrew Adamson, and sometimes they end up with Breck Eisner. There's no real brilliant overseer at Walden, who can identify when they're over- (or under-) reaching. They hedge their bets, and they've got deep pockets. The only reason anyone in town heeds them or pays deference, is because they've got money to spend.
