more reasons to hate Viacom

Catman

Avenger
Joined
Jul 14, 2002
Messages
29,046
Reaction score
1
Points
31
Viacom Kisses Off Spielberg

In what appeared to some analysts to be a remarkably cavalier comment from the head of the company that had paid $1.6 billion for the DreamWorks film company in 2005, Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman said Tuesday that if Steven Spielberg decides to leave DreamWorks when his contract expires next year, "the financial impact to Paramount first and especially to Viacom overall would be completely immaterial." Dauman's dismissive comments came as rumors spread that Spielberg, a DreamWorks cofounder, was becoming increasingly unhappy over his relationship with Paramount chief Brad Grey since the acquisition. Nevertheless, most of Paramount's successful releases since the acquisition have been DreamWorks' productions, and it was assumed within the industry that Viacom would do whatever was necessary to allay Spielberg's concerns. On the contrary, Dauman told a Goldman Sachs conference in New York Tuesday, Paramount was already planning for Spielberg's departure. Reporting on Dauman's remarks, Daily Variety commented that they were especially "notable" given the fact that publicly Dauman "usually speaks in formal, restrained tones."
 
Are they idiots? He's the most powerful man in Hollywood!
 
what's going on with the intelligence here? first cruise, now spielberg. are the f***in stupid!
 
Katzenberg Defends DreamWorks Cofounder Spielberg

DreamWorks Animation chief Jeffrey Katzenberg registered shock and anger Wednesday at news reports quoting Viacom chief Philippe Dauman as saying that it "would be completely immaterial" to his company if Steven Spielberg decides to leave DreamWorks when his contract expires next year. Speaking at an investors' conference in New York, Katzenberg, who co-founded DreamWorks with Spielberg and David Geffen, said: "Steven Spielberg is nothing short of a national treasure. ... To suggest that not having Steven Spielberg is completely immaterial seems ill-advised. I think calmer heads need to prevail here." Reporting on Katzenberg's remarks, Daily Variety noted Spielberg's "creative clout" was cited to justify the $1.6-billion price Viacom paid for DreamWorks in 2005 to beat out Universal. But now, the trade paper commented, "Dauman's comments have created additional fences to mend should he endeavor to keep the troika in the fold."
 
Why is Speilberg contracted to his own company?
 
Because he sold it in 2005 to Viacom for $1.6 billion.
 
Don't be surprised if Spielberg starts a NEW movie studio.
 
Well this is a pretty dumb move.

But meh, Speilberg will find a studio that lets him do what he wants pretty easily.

I'm more pissed at Viacom bribing FCC shareholders and buying themselves the Federal government so they can intentionally break the law until the FCC or the US Congress deregulates (fortunately the latter won't do so anytime soon thanks to a Democrat majority) the industry even further. To the point where they own over 45% of news media in half a dozen locations or more that breaks the law (it used to be one station, one channel and 1-2 newspapers, but thanks to the Telecom of '96 monsters like the current Viacom were born) or how it technically owns movie distributions (Paramount) when it is originated from an exhibition chain or how it owns CBS and until CW, part of UPN (which again was illegal, but overlooked by a bought and paid for FCC).

In short, Viacom is the epitomy of coorporate monopoly in the media today. While not as blatently dangerous as Ruperet Murdoch and the News Corp. (Fox), they own more media and control over half the media in some parts districts of the nation (which is illegal) and no one says a damn word. Viacom is a scary, SCARY company.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
201,162
Messages
21,908,109
Members
45,703
Latest member
BMD
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"