BRON’s termination will explain the future of film financing

The movie business teaches you to be wary of big spenders. The wide green came and went into a blur of miscalculated flops. Annapurna was reduced in size after several reckless acquisitions and eventually stopped acquiring films altogether. Now comes whispers that Canadian investment studio BRON — which has financed films like “Joker” and “Licorice Pizza” — is going the same way.

In the year The studio, which was started in 2010 by husband-and-wife team Aaron and Brenda Gilbert, has split several top roles and will merge its film and TV divisions into one unit, sources told me. Instead of producing its live-action features, I’m told BRON is now working to secure new corporate partners while restructuring its business model around BRON’s digital division (in its previous incarnation, BRON’s financing came in part from Canadian pension plans). This means a renewed focus on animation and games designed to create new franchises, rather than the usual mix of blockbusters and A-list auteurs he’s supported in the past. The company declined comment.

BRON may seem like just another company that’s getting worse, but over the past few years, it’s become one of the most successful film financing entities in North America, especially for films made in the $50 million range. The company’s track record includes everything from “Judas and the Black Messiah” to Clint Eastwood’s “Mul,” “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” and “House of Gucci.” This list doesn’t represent a shared vision as much as an array, which isn’t the worst strategy in an age defined by dynamic audiences. In a different world, BRON’s profile might have inspired him to market sweatshirts to compete with A24’s fashion collection.

Co-financed with Warner Bros., “Joker” grossed $1 billion worldwide and made it clear that big theatrical films with creative high concepts have serious business potential. Studios can reduce their risk factors; Bron can get into that danger for a steep climb. With the pandemic, that model made little sense. “House of Gucci” floated strongly. “Ghostbusters” made $200 million worldwide but fell well short of the $650 million investors had expected.

Greenlight’s pre-pandemic films weren’t theatrical enough in the post-Covid market. Several BRON-funded titles for Sony have been sold to streamers, including Tom Hanks’ WWII thriller “Greyhound” (Apple), Kevin Hart’s comedy “Fatherhood” (Netflix) and Ron Howard Tye’s caveman drama “13 Lives” (Amazon). . This set of obstacles underscores the bottom line: a funding body dedicated to movies and movies alone makes no sense.

BRON’s new direction includes Web3 applications, blockchain games and NFT classes are being discussed, but BRON Digital is not new; He heads a staff of 65 employees and twice as many as work for the division globally. No wonder the company is now turning to its other assets. Consider the former: Annapurna has made more headlines lately for projects like the third-person cat adventure game “Stray” (which, this cat-lover should actually play) and invested in the Tony winner. Musical “Strange Loop”

BRON hasn’t completely given up on feature films. Even as the company doubles down on IP work like the animated series “Fairy Tales” and “Gossamer,” I’m told it will likely continue to invest in films with budgets under $10 million — a pittance by Hollywood standards, but a sweet spot for the grand lo-fi narratives that make for some of the best cinema.

“Moonlight”

A24

On a $1.5 million budget, “Moonlight” cruised to Oscar and commercial success six years ago, but few have replicated that trajectory. After “Moonlight” premiered in Telluride, I wrote that movies aren’t dying; They are shrinking. That was mostly an aesthetic observation, but the business is beginning to realize it as well. It’s not the worst fate for the medium, which often leads to reckless spending and an entrenched culture that undermines the creative process.

So: let’s say the future of film financing is small movies – not Dogme-95 small, but $10-million small. That means the occasional “big” budget for a financial institution is closer to $25 million instead of $50 million (which movies like “Joker” cost). That’s not a bad place to be – “everything everywhere all at once” is the reported budget. Financing at this level makes sense for true visionaries who can expect some studio backing. It’s worth repeating a point I’ve made a few times in this column: studios want more first-look deals with filmmakers, which can enable budding creators without setting them on fire.

Filmmaking continues to creep into the system even when it doesn’t make sense on paper. Every now and then a visionary loon like Werner Herzog or Francis Ford Coppola comes along with “Fitzcarraldo” or “Apocalypse Now,” drives everyone crazy, and delivers a masterpiece. You can’t scale a business around these projects; They should always attack the gates. The era of low-budget filmmaking is one we welcome with its ever-present chaos on the fringes.

My optimistic reading of the situation may not be one that many industry experts agree with. Tell me why I should be more shocked by the BRON news and what it conveys about the state of filmmaking, or suggest your own solutions to current financial struggles, and I might include it in the next column: eric@indiewire.com

Eric Cohn’s previous columns can be found here.

open up: Stay on top of the latest breaking movie and TV news! Sign up for our email newsletter here.