Jacobson whacked...what?

email this story
read comments (39)
post a comment

This is ridiculous! In the wake of her recent image upgrade as one of the shrewdest and most perceptive studio execs around because she told M. Night Shyamalan that his Lady in the Water script needed work (Michael Bamberger's description of their disagreement is the most riveting portion of The Man Who Heard Voices) and with hundreds of millions rolling into studio coffers from the recent success of Pirates 2, Disney -- of all the times to do this -- has axed Nina Jacobson as president of production and replaced her with marketing president Oren Aviv.

Nikki Finke is reporting that "the uber-ambitious Aviv helped set the stage for Nina's descent (and his ascent) by telling Disney a while ago that Paramount's Brad Grey had offered him the same position that Gail Berman eventually took." I rang Jacobson's office about 45 minutes ago after hearing the news. This is one of the most bizarre and nonsensically out-of-the-blue whackings in Hollywood history. Disney is looking to scale back on feature production and make more family-friendly films. Fine...and the fang-toothed, razor-clawed Aviv is better for the job of cranking these films out than Jacobson?

"The studio is undergoing a major reorganization, and there simply isn't room for everyone in the new structure," Jacobson said in a statement. (Yeah, sure thing ...there wasn't "room" for Disney's whip-smart president of production.) "I love the company and it has been a great honor to be part of building the Walt Disney brand. I've had the opportunity to work on films that I love, with filmmakers I admire and colleagues I adore. I'm sorry to go but I am proud of what I've left behind, a vibrant movie studio with major franchises and thriving relationships with some of the most talented filmmakers in the world."

"Scoop" Fails<< previous | next >>Hubba-hubba

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on July 18, 2006 at 4:50 PM

comment #1

Andrew says ...

This is terrible. She's one of the few good executives left -- honest and smart.

And now she's going to be replaced by the head of marketing?! Give me a break.

It won't take her long to land on her feet. Hell, Sony should fire Amy P and replace her with Nina immediately.

Posted by Andrew at July 18, 2006 5:11 PM

comment #2

Alex says ...

Disney really is the unhappiest place on earth

Posted by Alex at July 18, 2006 5:27 PM

comment #3

Ted says ...

Nina was universally admired by directors and writers in this town -- well as much as an executive can be.

She'll get a new job soon. And take those relationships with her.

Dumb fucking move by Disney.

Posted by Ted at July 18, 2006 5:31 PM

comment #4

Wrecktum says ...

Oren is one of Dick's boys. Nina isn't. That simple.

Posted by Wrecktum at July 18, 2006 5:45 PM

comment #5

Kevin J says ...

This is the dumbest thing I've heard! Disney's the most successful they've been in years and they fire their top dog in the film industry? Jeez, did Pirates make too much money? Did they get angry because they didn't know where to put all of it so they blamed Nina? I'll never understand Hollywood. BTW, with a marketing exec leading the studios, how long until we see the complete deterioration of Disney Studios?

Posted by Kevin J at July 18, 2006 5:47 PM

comment #6

Wrecktum says ...

What did Nina have to do with Pirates?

Posted by Wrecktum at July 18, 2006 5:53 PM

comment #7

Chris says ...

Maybe she's wrong about "Lady in the Water."

Posted by Chris at July 18, 2006 6:12 PM

comment #8

Dixon Steele says ...

It could be that in the new restructuring, they're not going to be making any more Touchstone pics, just big tentpoles like Pirates and animated films. Only 8 a year, they say.

Question is, did she leave or was she pushed?

Posted by Dixon Steele at July 18, 2006 6:20 PM

comment #9

nola says ...

I sure Nina had something to do with Pirates. She was the President. Anyway, all these studio are putting the marketing guys in charge. If they could get rid of those pesky writers they would. It's all about marketing folks. It's a sad day for Hollywood. One of the few majors left cutting their slate by more than half? Not a good thing.

Posted by nola at July 18, 2006 6:30 PM

comment #10

TOm says ...

Nina had everything to do with Pirates. She was responsible for all Disney live action as well as the TOuchstone movies. She had more to do with expanding the Disney live action brand than anyone.

Posted by TOm at July 18, 2006 6:41 PM

comment #11

Rich E says ...

I'm sure Nina will be announced as the new chief of something at another studio within a month.

Disney is really stupid to have axed her considering her rep with filmmakers all over town as the insightful and honest exec.

But if they are (foolishly) lowering their live action slate again then Nina's talents will have been wasted there anyway.

Can't wait to see what she does at a proper studio that will give her free reign...

Posted by Rich E at July 18, 2006 7:19 PM

comment #12

Rich E says ...

PS - Maybe she'll end up at Warners and Shyamalan will book for another studio again.

Posted by Rich E at July 18, 2006 7:23 PM

comment #13

Wrecktum says ...

Obviously Nina didn't want to share power with Dick's boy Oren, so they kicked her to the curb. No big loss.

Nina was great at bringing established talent to the studio to make movies that Disney didn't know how to sell (Coen bros) and she was great at making grrrl power movies with diminishing returns at the box office (Ice Princess, anyone?). But her fingerprints are definitely not all over stuff that actually makes money for the studio, i.e. Pirates 2 (Bruckheimer) and Cars (Pixar).

Why should anyone care? It's not like Disney live action production have been undergoing some sort of renaissance and Dick has killed the goose that lays the golden egg. Aside from a few franchises their stuff has been pretty pathetic over the past few years. This is a good move for her. She has a good rep. She'll get a production gig somewhere and she'll be able develop what she wants to. Yay for her.

Posted by Wrecktum at July 18, 2006 7:30 PM

comment #14

Andrew says ...

I care because she was one of the few honest, direct, and very smart executives left in this town who really loved movies.

That's why I care, Wrecktum.

Posted by Andrew at July 18, 2006 7:32 PM

comment #15

Wrecktum says ...

It's not like she's dead, Andrew. Her termination is a bit rude considering her service to the company, but she'll be back, better than ever at another company. A company that doesn't have penny pinching mousketeers breathing down her neck, hopefully.

Posted by Wrecktum at July 18, 2006 7:45 PM

comment #16

movieirv says ...

You can;t overlook the timing of Night's book. The timing if this is truly bizarre, whether the film disappoints of not.

Posted by movieirv at July 18, 2006 7:54 PM

comment #17

Anonymous says ...

Right. She'll ahve all new penny piching slimy bastards in the tiny dick boys club of Hollywood.

Posted by Anonymous at July 18, 2006 7:54 PM

comment #18

movieirv says ...

You can;t overlook the timing of Night's book. The timing if this is truly bizarre, whether the film disappoints of not.

Posted by movieirv at July 18, 2006 7:54 PM

comment #19

Anonymous says ...

there are several thousand other worthy talents being let go as well.

Posted by Anonymous at July 18, 2006 8:13 PM

comment #20

ML says ...

I have nothing against Nina's track record at Disney, I haven't seen Lady in the Water yet, and I haven't read Bamberger's book yet, but how did the Night thing lead to an image upgrade? The bottom line is Night is gone and Night made a ton of money for Disney. Who cares whether Lady in the Water is any good? Disney was never going to lose money on it, and in the long run, will likely miss out on a ton of money from Night's future films. I'm sure this had nothing to do with her axing, but I'm just asking (hey, I rhymed!)

Posted by ML at July 18, 2006 8:22 PM

comment #21

Daniel Zelter says ...

Sure, Pirates made money, but Cars didn't, and all three films were expensive for the company.

Posted by Daniel Zelter at July 18, 2006 8:24 PM

comment #22

BL says ...

So I guess a higher up at Disney didn't like a subordinate getting some good PR and stealing their 'glory'.

Man I hate people like that.

Posted by BL at July 18, 2006 8:35 PM

comment #23

Anonymous says ...

I think we're over thinking it here. Quite simply, she's a chick in a boys club. Plus, she gets more pussy than the uptight white male execs.

Posted by Anonymous at July 18, 2006 8:59 PM

comment #24

bward says ...

Maybe "voices" told them to let her go? I see a trend here...

Posted by bward at July 18, 2006 9:51 PM

comment #25

DumbAndrew says ...

boo fucking hoo Nina got her ass fired...
could it be that she sucked?
No she was nice (to whom?)
Directors loved her (which?)
Get a grip loser Andrew- if she was doing well she would have been allowed to resign at worst.
Bruckheimer runs that place anyway.

Posted by DumbAndrew at July 18, 2006 11:07 PM

comment #26

David says ...

Uh, Excuse me, Daniel...Cars did NOT make money? Are you high? Or just stupid/ignorant? Thus far, Cars has grossed over 300 million dollars and it's far from done, domestically and foreign. Throw in potential DVD sales (Pixar always kicks ass on dvd/video) and you have a substantial hit, given that the budget was 120 million.

Posted by David at July 18, 2006 11:15 PM

comment #27

Daniel Zelter says ...

Dave: That's great, but that's less than half of the gross of Ice Age 2. At best, Cars did as well A Bug's Life, which makes sense, considering the director.

Posted by Daniel Zelter at July 19, 2006 12:15 AM

comment #28

Linden says ...

According to the LA TIMES Dick Cook fired her over the phone while Nina was in a hospital room where her partner was giving birth to their third child. Now that's cruel.

Posted by Linden at July 19, 2006 2:20 AM

comment #29

chuck says ...

daniel: per imdb, ice age 2 made $198 mil in tghe us and cars made $205 mil in the us and is still going. this is certainly a disappointment by pixar standards, but it's still one of the bigger hits of the summer.

Posted by chuck at July 19, 2006 7:51 AM

comment #30

christian says ...

The real story here is how Disney has revealed its hydra-head as a complete shill for future movie-commercials. Marketing people now fully in charge of esthetic content. Holy shit.

This is exactly what will happen across Hollywood if it continues to suck up to the marketing forces that are single-mindedly destroying studio films today. Scripts will have to be approved via McDonalds and Pepsi; plot points will revolve around product placement and soon studio movies will exist only as a commercial for various products. Not that it hasn't happened already. And that's what you get when you start calling movie studios and their output, "brands."

Disney of course is the poster child for the relentless selling out of their projects, so of course it makes sense to put a ad person in charge.

Coming Soon: I-Pod The Movie!

Posted by christian at July 19, 2006 8:26 AM

comment #31

Jason Birzer says ...

First off, the expectations for Cars was way too high. It is doing well, and it looks like merch sales are doing gangbusters for Disney, so they aren't hurting there.

Also, PotC2 is breaking all sorts of records. To expect Cars to do that well is a bit silly.

Posted by Jason Birzer at July 19, 2006 8:39 AM

comment #32

RK says ...

Poor Nina!

Her exit package will be more than what everyone on this msg board will make in a lifetime.

Posted by RK at July 19, 2006 9:43 AM

comment #33

Mike Gebert says ...

The real issue here is that Hollywood is committing itself more and more to the idea that the only kind of movie that can possibly make money is the $200 million superhero blockbuster which opens 15,000 prints on 15,000 screens backed by $100 million in TV ads-- and makes it all back in one weekend.

ANYTHING else-- even, say, a high concept comedy pairing Ben Stiller and Jim Carrey, directed by Jay Roach-- is deemed "too risky." (Unlike, say, a Superman sequel...)

Yet they're doing this right at the moment when TV advertising is falling apart as a way to reach a mass audience, when digital projection will make the need to strike all those prints and make all your money in one weekend unnecessary, when theatrical release is becoming the mere tail of the home video dog... in short, they are betting everything on a paradigm that looks like it's about to completely change in five different ways.

The studios are the new Patents Trust, narrowing their idea of what works so minutely that they're just begging for new competition to prove them wrong and steal their market away from them.

Posted by Mike Gebert at July 19, 2006 12:25 PM

comment #34

Anonymous says ...

Exactly, RK. Katzenberg and Ovitz both (separately) made enough money from getting fired from Disney to start new companies. Also, I'm agreeing with those that say Nina Jacobson couldn't have been doing THAT well to not have been allowed to resign and/or handed a rich producing deal at the studio. Don't all production presidents who get fired get producing deals?

Posted by Anonymous at July 19, 2006 1:40 PM

comment #35

christian says ...

Of course, the real lunacy is spending 300 million bucks on a film (pr included)so it can make 350 million. Imagine two films that cost under 50 million together and both made 100. More profit. The idea to maximize opening weekend grosses means more shitty movies. That's Hollywood's sad brand these days.

Posted by christian at July 19, 2006 1:56 PM

comment #36

Anonymous says ...

She turned down a producing deal. Who wants a producing deal at a studio that has flat-out admitted it has no interest in making anything but family flicks any more?

Posted by Anonymous at July 19, 2006 2:27 PM

comment #37

Anonymous says ...

I think people may be getting too abstract about this whole thing.

Its just as likely this may be about something like Nina getting in the way of a higher-up sleeping with some starlet (for example) as it is about anything else.

These studios are run by egomaniacs and decisions based on 'good buisness sense' are probably rarer than one would think.

Posted by Anonymous at July 19, 2006 2:42 PM

comment #38

gh says ...

It's not a matter of her being right or wrong about Lady In The Water it's a matter of her alienating a cash machine like Shyamalan so that he will think three times before even answering a call from Disney again. She could have handled it much more shrewdly.

Posted by gh at July 19, 2006 3:31 PM