More stories

  • in

    Mattel’s Windfall From ‘Barbie’

    The company’s approach has paid off to a degree that even the C.E.O. could hardly have believed possible.When Ynon Kreiz arrived at Mattel in April 2018, the newly installed chief executive had one mantra when it came to a feature film starring Barbie, a project he really wanted to get off the ground: He didn’t care if the movie sold a single additional doll.But “Barbie” the film had to be good and a cultural event. It had to be different. It had to break molds.And if that meant turning the chief executive of Mattel — i.e., himself — into the object of comic ridicule in the portrayal of the chief executive character in the film (“vain and foolish to the nth degree,” as The Guardian put it), then so be it.That approach has paid off to a degree that even Mr. Kreiz could hardly have believed possible. “Barbie” is close to grossing $1.4 billion and passed one of the “Harry Potter” movies as the top-grossing Warner Bros. film of all time. It could end up near the $2 billion mark. (The record-holder is 2009’s “Avatar,” at $2.9 billion.)How Mattel pulled off a feat that had eluded the company for years was the subject of recent interviews with Mr. Kreiz; Robbie Brenner, Mattel’s executive producer of films; spokespeople for Margot Robbie and Greta Gerwig, the film’s star and its writer-director; and others familiar with the doll’s sometimes tortuous path to the big screen.Mattel and Warner have jealously guarded their financial arrangements. But people with knowledge of their agreement said Mattel earned 5 percent of the box office revenue, as well as a percentage of eventual profits as a producer of the movie and additional payments as owner of the Barbie intellectual property rights. At $2 billion in box office revenue, that amounts to $100 million. In addition, there are sales of merchandise connected to the movie as well as an expected boost in sales of dolls.Representatives for Mattel and Warner declined to comment on the financial arrangements, though the company’s chief financial officer said at a conference on Thursday that the company would make about $125 million in total billings from the film.Even though Barbie results weren’t reflected in Mattel’s latest earnings, released July 26, all anyone wanted to talk about at the earnings call was “Barbie.” Mr. Kreiz hailed the film as a “milestone moment” in the company’s strategy to “capture the value of its I.P.” and demonstrate its ability to attract and team up with top creative talent — a cornerstone of its ambitious slate of more toy-themed movies.After the first “Barbie” trailer — showing a hyper-blond, Day-Glo-clad Ms. Robbie and Ryan Gosling skating along Venice Beach — went viral in December, anticipation started building. Mattel stock has been on a tear. It has gained 33 percent, from $16.24 on Dec. 19 to this week’s $21.55. The S&P 500 rose 16 percent over the same period.Wall Street has been reluctant to give much credit to one hit, on the theory that such success is hard to replicate. (“Barbie” has had no discernible impact on Warner Bros. Discovery’s stock price.)But for Mattel, the positive impact of “Barbie” goes far beyond just one film. The company’s yearslong strategy to become a major film producer, using its vast storehouse of toys as intellectual property, had been met in Hollywood with skepticism, if not outright mockery. A-list talent wasn’t lining up to direct a plush purple dinosaur like Barney. But now the perception that Mattel’s leadership is willing to trust and support an unorthodox creative team that delivered both a box office bonanza and a possible awards contender has radically altered that.And Mattel’s surprising willingness to make fun of itself was one of the elements that mostly delighted critics and added to the buzz that roped in many more moviegoers than the “Barbie” fan base.That Mr. Kreiz was willing to laugh at his own caricature came as something as a surprise to some acquaintances and former colleagues. An Israeli military veteran with dual Israeli and British citizenship, a former professional wind surfer, an avid kite surfer and a fitness buff, with more than a passing resemblance to a younger Arnold Schwarzenegger, the 58-year-old Mr. Kreiz comes across as more of a square-jawed G.I. Joe action hero than a Barbie fan with a sense of humor.Mr. Kreiz’s entire career was in media and entertainment, not retail. His longtime mentor, the Power Rangers entrepreneur and billionaire Haim Saban, hired him fresh out of the University of California, Los Angeles, to launch Fox Kids Europe, a joint venture with Fox. He later ran Maker Studios, a YouTube aggregator, which Disney acquired in 2014. Mr. Kreiz left in 2016, and Maker was folded into the Disney Digital Network in 2017.That “Barbie” even got made was no small feat. It had languished at Sony for years, with Mattel routinely renewing the option, as various writers struggled to adapt the doll for the big screen. Although one of the most popular toys ever, Barbie was the subject of intense controversy, seen both as a symbol of female empowerment and as an impossible standard of beauty and femininity. The only feasible approach seemed a parody. The comedian Amy Schumer was once slated for the part. But scripts came and went.Ynon Kreiz, the chief executive of Mattel, and Robbie Brenner, a producer of “Barbie.”Rozette Halvorson for The New York TimesWeeks after becoming chief executive in 2018, Mr. Kreiz refused to renew the Sony option, according to multiple people interviewed for this article. He called Ms. Robbie’s agent and asked for a meeting. Ms. Robbie was among the most sought-after young actresses in Hollywood, fresh from acclaimed performances in diverse roles — as the ill-fated ice skater Tonya Harding in “I, Tonya”; in Martin Scorsese’s “The Wolf of Wall Street”; and as a fixture in Warner’s DC Comics universe as Harley Quinn, the Joker’s former girlfriend. And while no human could replicate Barbie’s exaggerated dimensions, Ms. Robbie came reasonably close, while also radiating wholesome beauty.Ms. Robbie was simultaneously reaching out to Mattel and Mr. Kreiz after learning that the “Barbie” option hadn’t been renewed. She was looking for a potential franchise to take to Warner, where her production company, LuckyChap, had a first-look deal. But she wasn’t looking to star in the film herself.Over breakfast at the Polo Lounge at the Beverly Hills Hotel, the plush entertainment and celebrity hangout not far from Mattel’s less glamorous El Segundo headquarters, Mr. Kreiz shared his vision: He didn’t want to make movies in order just to sell toys. He wanted something fresh, unconventional, bold.“Our vision for Barbie was someone with a strong voice, a clear message, with cultural resonance that would make a societal impact,” he said, recalling his message.Mr. Kreiz’s obvious enthusiasm and determination, and his pitch for creative integrity make him hard to resist, as Ms. Brenner, a producer, discovered when he recruited her to run the newly created Mattel film division during another meal at the Polo Lounge. Ms. Brenner, a respected producer and an Academy Award nominee for “Dallas Buyers Club,” was attracted to his idea for the movie. In Mr. Kreiz’s vision, Mattel would be as much a movie company as a toy company. The two bonded after he asked her who should play Barbie, and she, too, volunteered Ms. Robbie.At their first meeting, Ms. Robbie suggested Ms. Gerwig for the director. The two were friends and had talked about working together. Mr. Kreiz loved the idea in part because it was so unexpected — Ms. Gerwig had directed and written acclaimed but offbeat independent films like “Frances Ha,” “Lady Bird” and a new take on the classic “Little Women,” but no big-budget fare.“Lady Bird” was one of Ms. Brenner’s favorite movies. But would Ms. Gerwig consider such a mass-market, commercial proposal?Ms. Gerwig, it turned out, had played with Barbie dolls and loved them. She even had old photos of herself playing with Barbie. Ms. Brenner met with Ms. Gerwig and her partner, Noah Baumbach, also an acclaimed screenwriter and director, at an editing facility in New York. They kicked around a few ideas, but nothing concrete emerged. Anything seemed possible.A deal was struck, and Warner signed on as co-producer. Once Ms. Gerwig was on board, Ms. Robbie agreed to star.At which point Ms. Gerwig and Mr. Baumbach retreated. “I know it’s not conventional and not what you’re used to, but we have to go into a room for a few months. That’s how we work and want to do it,” as Ms. Gerwig put it, Mr. Kreiz recalled.The script for “Barbie” — starring Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling and directed by Greta Gerwig — “was like going on this crazy ride,” Ms. Brenner said.Warner Bros.When the script did land in Ms. Brenner’s email, it was 147 pages — the length of a Quentin Tarantino film, epic by Hollywood standards. She closed her office door and started reading. “It was like going on this crazy ride,” she recalled. It broke rules, including the so-called fourth wall, addressing the audience directly. It poked fun at Mattel.New to the company, Ms. Brenner didn’t know if this would prove too much for Mattel executives. But she believed it was a great script.Ms. Brenner’s first call was to Mr. Kreiz. “I’ve read a lot of scripts, and this is so different,” she told him. “It’s special. You don’t get this feeling many times in an entire career.”Mr. Kreiz read the script twice, back to back. “It was deep, provoking, unconventional and imaginative,” he said. “It was everything I was hoping it would be.”Ms. Brenner was pleasantly surprised. “Ynon is a very confident person,” she said. “He can laugh at himself.”At one point Mr. Kreiz flew to London, where “Barbie” sets were being built at Warner’s studio outside the city. He and Ms. Gerwig spent a half-hour discussing the perfect shade of pink.Mr. Kreiz and Ms. Brenner knew they had a potential hit. “It was our secret that we couldn’t talk about,” Ms. Brenner recalled.The original budget target of $80 million jumped above $120 million once Ms. Gerwig was signed. But even that wouldn’t realize the director’s full vision for the film. For Warner executives it was a struggle to find what are known as “comps,” similar films that had grossed enough to justify such an outlay.Would “Barbie” be another “Charlie’s Angels” from 2019 — which was budgeted at $55 million but grossed only $73 million and, after marketing costs, lost money? Or another “Wonder Woman” from 2017, budgeted at over $100 million, with a worldwide gross of $822 million?Eventually the budget hit $141 million and, with some reshoots, ultimately topped $150 million.On opening night, July 21, Mr. Kreiz took his 19-year-old daughter to the Regal cinema complex at Union Square in Manhattan. As they neared the theater, droves of moviegoers — and not just young girls — were heading to it in pink outfits. Five screenings were in progress. All were sold out.Mr. Kreiz and his daughter dropped in and out to gauge audience reactions. People laughed, applauded and in a few cases shed tears.Of course the success of “Barbie” has drastically raised the bar — and expectations — for Mattel’s movies in development, starting with “Masters of the Universe,” written and directed by the brothers Adam and Aaron Nee. Twelve more films are in various stages of development, including a “Hot Wheels” produced by J.J. Abrams, also at Warner. Some of these may need to be rethought.And there will no doubt be “Barbie” sequels, perhaps even a James Bond-like franchise, which would be Mr. Kreiz’s ultimate fantasy (although he said it was too soon to discuss any such plans).Mr. Kreiz acknowledged that in a notoriously fickle and unpredictable business, future success is hardly assured. But “Barbie” has given Mattel momentum — the beginning of what he calls “a multiyear franchise management strategy.” More

  • in

    New Era Begins at Warner Bros., Back Toward Its Entertainment Roots

    With a new owner, the 99-year-old movie studio appears headed back to its traditional sweet spot as an entertainment company. But the business of Hollywood is no longer the same.LOS ANGELES — By 2018, almost every golden-age Hollywood studio had been conquered by outside forces.Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer had been tossed between disruptive owners for decades, never to fully recover. Columbia Pictures was sold to Coca-Cola in 1982 and then offloaded to Sony in 1989. Universal had weathered five outside takeovers in the span of 21 years. Paramount Pictures had been strip mined for cash by an ailing Sumner Redstone.Warner Bros. alone stood as Hollywood’s citadel, a beige-walled protectorate of filmmakers run by executives with institutional Hollywood knowledge.Then AT&T drove into town.The Texas phone giant took over Warner Bros. in June 2018 as part of a bid to “bring a fresh approach to how the media and entertainment company works,” as Randall L. Stephenson, then AT&T’s chief executive, put it at the time. As it set about building a Netflix-style streaming service, AT&T slashed and burned through the Warner Bros. ranks and installed leaders with little Hollywood experience. They cut costs, surprised stars with abrupt distribution decisions and pushed Warner to start behaving as more of a technology company and less of an entertainment one: It’s the future!“The telephone people had no understanding of Hollywood — and no passion for movies,” Robert A. Daly, who ran Warner Bros. in the 1980s and ’90s, said on Friday. “It’s the same mistake outsiders always make. It’s show business, show business, show business. They always forget that.”On Friday, AT&T handed off Warner Bros. to Discovery Inc. as part of a $43 billion merger.The 99-year-old movie studio, home to Harry Potter, Batman and Bugs Bunny, will now head in a different direction — back toward its traditional sweet spot as an entertainment company, or at least Hollywood’s newest mogul has vowed. David Zaslav, Discovery’s chief executive, will run the new corporation, which is called, with no small amount of symbolism, Warner Bros. Discovery.Already, Mr. Zaslav has vanquished tech leaders brought in by AT&T, including Jason Kilar, who made his name at Hulu and Amazon, and Andy Forssell, who came up through Oracle and Hulu. Also departing is Ann Sarnoff, who AT&T hired to run Warner Bros. in 2019 despite limited Hollywood experience. During her tenure, Ms. Sarnoff reworked the Warner Bros. shield logo, dropping the gold trim in favor of AT&T blue. On Friday, Mr. Zaslav restored the gold.Some Hollywood players never changed their acid position on Ms. Sarnoff — she’s not one of us — with film folk sniping about her delay in relocating to Los Angeles from New York. (With the pandemic ebbing, she bought Matt Damon’s old house in November, spending roughly $18 million.)Ann Sarnoff was hired to run Warner Bros. in 2019 despite limited Hollywood experience. She is leaving the post.JC Olivera/Getty Images for National Hispanic Media CoalitionIn contrast, Mr. Zaslav is already deep into a lavish restoration of Woodland, an estate in Beverly Hills where Robert Evans, the show business legend, lived for decades. Mr. Evans was known for orchestrating a creative rebirth at Paramount in the 1960s and ’70s, delivering era-defining triumphs like “The Godfather” and “Chinatown.”“Success is about creative talent, in front of the screen, and behind the screen, and fighting and fighting to create a culture that supports that creative vision,” Mr. Zaslav said when announcing the takeover. For much of the past year, he has rhapsodized about the studio’s rich legacy, repeatedly paying tribute to Jack, Harry, Sam and Albert Warner, “the brothers who started it all.”On Friday, Mr. Zaslav talked about his aspirations to “dream big and dream bold” in an email sent to his new employees. “Hallelujah,” one Warner Bros. manager said in a text message afterward. Another executive at the studio, speaking by phone, said she was going on a “wild” shopping spree to celebrate, adding, “Hollywood is back, baby.”Others were not so sure. Mr. Zaslav qualifies as an entertainment insider, having run Discovery, a cable television behemoth, for 15 years and working at NBCUniversal before that. But he has little film experience. The merger also comes with breathtaking debt — some $55 billion — that will have to be paid down, even as content costs rise. Mr. Zaslav will need to make difficult decisions about how to allocate resources. How much money should be spent on movie production and marketing? To what degree should the studio make movies for exclusive release in theaters? Should the focus shift even further toward supplying films to HBO Max, the company’s streaming service?Under Ms. Sarnoff, Warner Bros. slashed its annual theatrical output by nearly half and built a direct-to-streaming assembly line. “The good old days are gone forever,” one Warner-affiliated film producer said on Friday.Hollywood as a whole finds itself in a similar state of mind: optimistic about the future of movies one minute, pessimistic the next. There is evidence that theaters are finally bouncing back from the pandemic. Over the weekend, the PG-rated “Sonic the Hedgehog 2” took in a huge $71 million in North America, the biggest opening total for a Paramount movie since 2014, while “The Batman” (Warner Bros.) added $6.5 million in ticket sales, for a blockbuster domestic total of $359 million since arriving on March 4.At the same time, one of Hollywood’s most bankable directors, Michael Bay, sputtered over the weekend. His crime thriller “Ambulance” (Universal) arrived to just $8.7 million in ticket sales. In another bummer, “Morbius” (Sony) collapsed in its second weekend, collecting $10.2 million in the United States and Canada, a 74 percent decline.Some analysts liken the future of big screens to Broadway — still alive, but relegated to a corner of the culture. “The pandemic caused a phase shift in movie consumption patterns with audiences having moved decisively to preferring streaming services over the theatrical experience for all but the biggest, loudest, PG-13est films,” Doug Creutz, a Cowen analyst, wrote in a March 25 report.The result is a disoriented movie business. Run toward streaming. No, wait — we’ve got to keep theaters alive. Run the other way.Now, run both ways at the same time.The discombobulation at Warner Bros. started in 2016. That is when AT&T announced that it was buying the studio’s parent company, Time Warner, for more than $85 billion. The deal sat in regulatory limbo for 20 excruciating months, limiting the ability of Warner executives to make bold strategic moves. Moreover, Netflix was spending billions during that period to become the preferred home for film directors and marquee television producers. Amazon Prime Video was also making inroads.Mr. Zaslav’s catch-up strategy will soon emerge. To formulate it, he has spent months reaching out to people like Mr. Daly; Sherry Lansing, the retired Paramount superpower; Robert A. Iger, who retired as Disney’s executive chairman in December; and Alan F. Horn, who ran the Warner Bros. Pictures Group from 1999 to 2011 and then led Walt Disney Studios for nearly a decade.Their brain power was undoubtedly invaluable. But meeting with them also sent a clear message to Hollywood: I respect your culture.“The telephone people had no understanding of Hollywood — and no passion for movies,” said Robert A. Daly, who ran Warner Bros. in the 1980s and ’90s.Valerie Macon/WireImage, via Getty Images“For an industry of its substantial size, Hollywood is surprising insular,” Mr. Horn said on Saturday. “The creative community, in particular, needs to feel your respect. Artists need to know that you understand them and will do your absolute best to protect them.”Mr. Horn continued: “David’s willingness to go around town and seek the advice of dozens of people has spoken volumes. It’s how you build trust.”Mr. Zaslav will “work with a passion to rebuild the studio’s relationship with the creative community,” Mr. Daly said. “You’ve got to support the talent,” he added. “It’s a bit like children: Don’t spoil them too much, but make them feel loved.”Mr. Daly then waxed nostalgic about talent relations at Warner Bros. in the past. The studio used to send turkeys to stars at Thanksgiving. “It cost nothing, and it meant the world to them,” he said. There was also the time, in 1992, when Mr. Daly gave free Land Rovers to seven members of the “Lethal Weapon 3” cast and crew. “It cost us $320,000 to buy those Land Rovers, and we were criticized left and right for the expense,” Mr. Daly said. “Do you know what it got us? ‘Lethal Weapon 4,’ which made $285 million.”Mr. Zaslav seems to have taken notes. In February, when Los Angeles hosted the Super Bowl, stars like Charlize Theron and Jamie Foxx and prolific Warner Bros. producers like Greg Berlanti (“Riverdale,” “The Flight Attendant,” “You”) were invited to party in his suite at the new SoFi Stadium. Mr. Zaslav and his key lieutenants bought the suite with the intention of routinely wining and dining talent at football games, concerts and other major events.The stately Warner Bros. complex in Burbank, Calif., is the ancestral home of Humphrey Bogart (“Casablanca”) and Bette Davis (“Now, Voyager”). Mr. Zaslav intends to move into Jack Warner’s old office, a decision based on his stated desire to be near where “the magic happens.” The Warner Bros. administration building is near Soundstage 6, where one of Mr. Zaslav’s favorite movies, “The Maltese Falcon,” was partly filmed.Just one word to the wise, Mr. Zaslav: Don’t park in Clint Eastwood’s spot. He’s had it for more than 50 years and once used a baseball bat to knock out the windows of an interloping car.John Koblin More

  • in

    Ann Sarnoff, Warner Bros. Chief, Is Set to Leave

    LOS ANGELES — Ann Sarnoff, the chief executive of the WarnerMedia Studios and Networks Group, will leave the company, with an announcement coming as soon as this week, three people briefed on the matter said.Ms. Sarnoff, who declined to comment, was chosen to lead Warner Bros. in 2019 despite limited Hollywood experience, becoming the first woman to hold the role. She is departing as WarnerMedia, a division of AT&T, is set to complete a merger with Discovery. Ms. Sarnoff’s boss, Jason Kilar, who has been chief executive of WarnerMedia since 2020, announced his exit on Tuesday.Like Mr. Kilar, Ms. Sarnoff found herself without a seat in the game of musical chairs that accompanies the merging of competing companies, said the people briefed on the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss confidential information. The Warner Bros. Discovery management structure is still unknown, but David Zaslav, the chief executive of Discovery, who will run the new company, is expected to take over at least some of Ms. Sarnoff’s portfolio. She has had a dozen direct reports.Her job has involved oversight of HBO and HBO Max; the Warner Bros. movie and television studio; several cable channels, including TBS and TNT; and a large consumer products division. Breaking down the siloed nature of some of those units has been one of Ms. Sarnoff’s accomplishments.After news of her departure became public, Mr. Zaslav said in an email that Ms. Sarnoff had been “a passionate and committed steward,” leading “with integrity, focus and hard work in bringing WarnerMedia’s businesses, brands and work force closer together.” In an email of his own, Mr. Kilar called Ms. Sarnoff a “first-tier human being” and “the definition of a selfless leader.”Ms. Sarnoff’s job security has been the subject of Hollywood gossip for months, with agents and Warner-affiliated producers insisting that she was on her way out and some members of her team insisting the opposite. That kind of speculation can be deadly in show business, with whispers congealing into conventional wisdom, often resulting in an irrecoverable position of weakness in the view of Hollywood’s creative community.To be fair, Ms. Sarnoff, whip smart and affable, never got the opportunity to really do her job. The pandemic shut down the entertainment business roughly seven months after she started. AT&T, which hired her, decided to spin off WarnerMedia last May.Before joining WarnerMedia, Ms. Sarnoff held leadership roles at Nickelodeon, the Women’s National Basketball Association, Dow Jones and BBC America. More

  • in

    Alan Horn, a top creative executive, is the latest high-ranking Disney departure.

    One of Hollywood’s senior statesmen announced his retirement on Monday, adding to a startling changing of the guard at the Walt Disney Company.Alan F. Horn, 78, will step down on Dec. 31 as chief creative officer of Disney Studios Content, a division that includes Marvel, Lucasfilm, Searchlight Pictures, Pixar, 20th Century Studios and Disney’s traditional animation and live-action movie operations. His position is not expected to be filled.“It’s never easy to say goodbye to a place you love, which is why I’ve done it slowly,” Mr. Horn said in a statement. “But with Alan Bergman leading the way, I’m confident the incredible Studios team will keep putting magic out there for years to come.” Mr. Bergman, a steady hand at Disney’s movie division since 1996, succeeded Mr. Horn as chairman of Disney Studios Content last year.Mr. Bergman, 55, called Mr. Horn “one of the most important mentors I’ve ever had.”Mr. Horn’s retirement adds to brain drain at the world’s largest entertainment company as a new generation of executives rise to power — led by Bob Chapek, who became chief executive last year. While not unexpected, the parade of retirements has contributed to an unsettled feeling inside the conglomerate, which is still recovering from an almost complete shutdown during the early part of the pandemic.Robert A. Iger, the executive chairman, is decamping in December. Alan N. Braverman, Disney’s top lawyer, and Zenia B. Mucha, its chief communications officer, plan to leave around the same time. Other departures have included Jayne Parker, who led human resources; Steve Gilula and Nancy Utley, who ran Searchlight, Disney’s art film studio; and Gary Marsh, a longtime Disney-branded television executive.Mr. Horn’s entertainment career has spanned nearly 50 years. He joined Disney in 2012 after being squeezed out of a senior role at Warner Bros. to make room for a new generation of managers. At Warner, where he expertly steered the Harry Potter and Batman franchises, he forged a strategy that ultimately swept through Hollywood — focusing on effects-filled franchise pictures, or “tent poles,” that resonate overseas.The growth at Disney’s movie division under his tenure was jaw-dropping. In 2012, Disney-distributed movies collected about $3.3 billion at the global box office. In 2019, the studio generated $9 billion in ticket sales. More