Warner Bros. May Have Ended Their 50-Year Partnership With Clint Eastwood

  
Via:  John Russell  •  2 weeks ago  •  6 comments

By:   Jordan Ruimy (World of Reel)

Warner Bros. May Have Ended Their 50-Year Partnership With Clint Eastwood
Zaslav taking over is very bad news for not just Eastwood, but quality cinema as a whole. His attitude seems repugnant. That's not a way to talk about a man who brought your studio a ton of prestige over the last five decades with critically-acclaimed and award-winning movies."

Leave a comment to auto-join group MOVIES & TV - CLASSIC to CURRENT

MOVIES & TV - CLASSIC to CURRENT


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



August 4, 2022Jordan Ruimy

I wrote back in May about my worries with incoming Warner Bros. CEO David Zaslav.

The gist of my dread came in the way he treated Clint Eastwood, who has been making movies with Warners for over 50 years now. It's been one of the most trust-worthy and lasting director/studio friendships in the industry.

Zaslav didn't seem to give a damn about the partnership. A leaked conference call had Zaslav acting like this hotshot who would not flinch if he had to let go of Eastwood's partnership with the studio.

The major point of contention was Eastwood's box-office flop "Cry Macho." After executives told Zaslav that they had doubted the movie would turn a profit, Zaslav asked "then why did you make it if you had reservations?" When they replied that Eastwood had given the studio many hits and never delivered a movie late or over budget, he answered: "We don't owe anyone any favors."

"Eastwood is turning 92 next week. He has nothing more to prove, but he still wants to make the small-budgeted movies he seems to be churning out on a yearly basis. Zaslav taking over is very bad news for not just Eastwood, but quality cinema as a whole. His attitude seems repugnant. That's not a way to talk about a man who brought your studio a ton of prestige over the last five decades with critically-acclaimed and award-winning movies."

Now, after chatting with a few in-the-know individuals about the "Batgirl" debacle, I'm hearing Eastwood isn't going back to the Warner Bros, which, as you can surmise, I am not surprised about at all.

The story goes that Eastwood recently pitched a new movie to the studio and it didn't get greenlit. Yes, they rejected Clint Eastwood. Maybe the movie pitched wasn't good, I don't know, but it's becoming clearer by the day that Warners are going in a totally different direction under Zaslav.

Eastwood is in his twilight years, he still wants to make movies and, know what? He's been making some very good ones these last few years, especially "The Mule" and "Richard Jewell."


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

This Zaslav character is the same person who shelved the finished 90 million dollar Batgirl movie because it was going to play on streaming and he only wants Warner Bros movies to debut in theaters. 

I dont think he will be too long in his new position. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago

One source says test audiences thought the movie “was like a bad TV show” — and another says a planned Supergirl feature could be next on the chopping block

But why the abrupt move? Sources say the film began testing with audiences on July 14, and while Grace’s performance was embraced, the overall feedback was harsh. One source familiar with audience testing for the film likened it to “a bad episode of TV,” while another said “it’s definitely not theatrical.” The new regime at WBD, headed up by David Zaslav, has handed down a mandate that DC films should be released theatrically or not at all.

With Batgirl , studio executives faced a situation where they could spend another $7 million to $9 million in postproduction and special-effects costs — and perhaps more in reshoots — to try to get the movie to a place where it could stand alongside some of DC’s similarly small gambles, like the upcoming Shazam! Fury of the Gods , whose budget is $125 million. The consensus, according to the latter source, was that no amount of reshoots, editing, or effects could elevate Batgirl to that level, and the decision was made “to not throw good money after bad.” 

Just look at the Batgirl costume. It is a throw back to the campy stupid Batman. Bringing back Michael Keaton to play Batman does nothing to help the campy stupid image. Ben Affleck is old batman; what is Keaton supposed to be geriatric Batman?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1    2 weeks ago

It is bad publicity for the studio and the new studio head any way you cut it. If it is that bad it would probably become a cult hit. I read that Zaslav wants all Warner Bros movies to open in theaters with no direct to streaming. 

His dissing of Clint Eastwood is bizarre. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1.2  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

"If it is that bad it would probably become a cult hit".

Really; how many really bad movies never became cult classics? Some movies are just to horrendous to watch.

It took DC a really long time to overcome their "Dumb Comics" image. Warner Bros. is bring that image back with these shoddy movies they are cracking out.

Dissing Eastwood will preserve his "woke" image after dumping bombs and not giving the minority women in them their time in the spotlight. Eastwood is a conservative all the way. For many of the "woke" this is long overdue.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
2  Buzz of the Orient    2 weeks ago

I thought Gran Torino, which he directed and acted in, was a great movie.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
3  Thrawn 31    2 weeks ago

Good god he is still alive? 

The major point of contention was Eastwood's box-office flop "Cry Macho." After executives told Zaslav that they had doubted the movie would turn a profit, Zaslav asked "then why did you make it if you had reservations?" When they replied that Eastwood had given the studio many hits and never delivered a movie late or over budget, he answered: "We don't owe anyone any favors."

That is a pretty dickhead attitude to take, I doubt he will be in the driver's seat for very long. Not everything is going to be a hit dude. Now I don't have any experience in Hollywood but I do know that even the greatest directors, screenwriters, and actors out there have movies that are just bad for any number of reasons. I have to imagine though that their successes far outweigh the costs of their failures, and that is why you keep working with them. I am sure one way to sink a studio is to poison your relationship with the real talent in the field by never throwing them a bone on their pet projects or supporting them when they want to take a risk. 

 
 

Who is online



35 visitors