Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing - Mattel’s Filmmaking Strategy
Episode Date: July 22, 2023Mattel has 45 films in development. A cinematic take on UNO could be coming to a theater near you. Mary Long caught up with New Yorker writer Alex Baracsh to discuss his recent piece, “After ‘B...arbie,’ Mattel Is Raiding Its Entire Toybox”. They discuss: - How Mattel is becoming an IP company. - Why “The Last of Us” broke the curse of bad video game adaptations. - If big budget movies really need characters that audiences already know. Companies mentioned: MAT, HAS, DIS Host: Mary Long Guest: Alex Barasch Producer: Ricky Mulvey Engineer: Dan Boyd, Rick Engdahl Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Transcript
Discussion (0)
Stop wasting your nights on a mattress that doesn't get you.
Experience the most comfortable mattress in the world.
The Sleep Number Smart Bed.
At the touch of a button, you can personalize your comfort.
Choose firmer or softer.
Adjust cooler to warmer.
And right now, save up to $2,500 during our massive Labor Day event.
Hurry into your local Sleep Number store today.
Because we have your number.
certainly at Mattel there was a lot of talk of four quadrant films you know you want to hit all
of the possible demographics you need it to be broadly commercial theatrical and really hit all
the beats and you know even the slogan of the Bobby movie if you love Bobby this is for you
if you hate Bobby this is for you it seems like an almost impossible thing to hold in one film
I'm Mary Long, and that's Alex Barish, a writer at The New Yorker magazine.
I caught up with Barish to discuss the IP to movie pipeline and Mattel's asset-light approach to filmmaking,
the new bargain that directors have to make for big-budget movies,
and the potential cinematic takes for Hot Wheels, Masters of the Universe, and Uno?
Today kicks off our entertainment-focused weekend of shows.
Tomorrow is our next installment of the Motley Fool Money Book Club,
where we'll dive into Bob Iger's memoir, The Ride of a Lifetime.
Joining us now is Alex Barish, a writer at The New Yorker who specializes in entertainment and
culture. Alex, thanks for being here. Thank you for having me. Excited to be here.
Of course. We're going to talk about the IP to movie pipeline that seems to be taking over
Hollywood these days. But first, let's tackle something a bit more timely. The Screen Actors
Guild recently joined the Hollywood writers on Strike. How might this affect the IP cycle loop?
Yeah, I mean, it's a great question. I think, you know, we'll see how it affects what's already in
the pipeline. But we've been in this moment of real risk aversion and conservatism in Hollywood
generally. And I have to imagine this is only going to compound that as, you know, they try
to make up for lost time if and when things do resolve themselves. So maybe it makes it worse.
We'll see. But time will tell.
Yes. So I would say that you wrote the book or the article on Mattel's plans to rate its toy
chest after the Barbie movie hits theaters this summer. Can you kind of lay the foundation for
us a little? How did the idea of turning Mattel into an IP company rather than a mere toy maker
come to take hold? Yeah, absolutely. So this is essentially the brainchild of
Inon Kreitz, who's the new-ish CEO of Mattel. He came in in 2018 when the toy maker was frankly
really struggling. I mean, Toys R Us had just gone out of business. They were drowning. They
reported something like 300 million in losses. They've been four CEOs in four years. It was a
bit of a mess. So he came in and made this pitch to essentially reinvent the company and say,
okay, we're no longer just a toy company. We are now an IP company. We're managing franchises as
much as we're managing these individual brands. You know, we have these assets that we've been
sitting on. He came from an entertainment background and he felt that, you know, Mattel's
catalog was, as he put it, second only to Disney in terms of children's entertainment and that
they had not really capitalized on that. So his pitch was to align themselves with these studios
and make films that would then sort of give them the cultural cachet and help them turn the ship
around. And so Barbie is kind of the first, the pioneer of this experiment into content creation
and building an IP factory, but it also kind of took a while to bring this movie to life,
to live action. The idea for this was like first kicked around before Christ kind of took the stage
in 2008, right? So what was the path to production of this movie in particular? Oh yeah. I mean,
it's been a journey and I think part of it is Mattel's fear of damaging the brand. You know,
this came up a lot in my reporting. There was this real anxiety about the message that the
film might send and, uh, you know, how it might reflect on the toys that they have treasured and
that they, you know, it's their big moneymaker, you know, it makes them $1.5 billion a year now.
So it really matters to them, the reputation of the doll. And obviously it has this very
fraught history. So yeah, there was a time back at Sony when it was attached to Amy Schumer. It
was attached to Anne Hathaway. And each of those projects, from what I understand from my reporting,
were a bit more critical of Bobby and a little bit more making fun of Bobby. I mean, which is
not to say the one that we've arrived at is not mounting its critiques. But in this case,
Bobby was the butt of the joke. And when he came in and said, we cannot have that. So let's sort
of reclaim the rights, or let's let the rights lapse, and let's start fresh with a new team.
And then that's the point where Margot Robbie, who had also been watching those rights like a hawk,
sort of waiting for her own opportunity to pounce, decided to come into the picture.
Yeah. So, this suggests, like, that lengthy timeline and Kreutz's whole plan kind of suggests
that Mattel is really set on this strategy in particular working. You mentioned a little bit,
like the phase that Mattel was in when Christ took the reins as CEO. How badly does Mattel
need this pivot to being an IP factory to work? I mean, it's an interesting situation for them
because they have what they call a capital light model where they're not necessarily bankrolling
any of these films. The studios are the ones who are bringing the funds and they're bringing the
IP to the table. So it's not a question of them losing money on this, but they do really need
people to think well of the toys that they make. You know, they're very insistent that it's not
about selling toys. But if you look at the Burby movie, you can see there are, you know, dozens of
brand partnerships that have come out of this. They've released their special collection of
dolls to go with it. They've got all of these tie-in products. It's just a barrage of all Burby
all the time. And I think, you know, in order for them to continue to succeed, you know, they did
well during the pandemic, but then they kind of plateaued. And I think there's a real sense of
we need to revive the brand, we need to change the way people think about these things,
or we need to keep it favorable to the extent that it is. So, in terms of reputation management and
building a film division that people will take seriously, they really, really need this to work.
Yeah. You bring up an interesting point, too. The movie hasn't launched yet,
but we've already seen so much media hype and press hype about this.
And Mattel has already, like we keep saying, or people keep saying, we won't know if the strategy
works until after the movie launches. But Mattel's kind of already seen some success in like press
pickup, but also in partnerships. Like there's a progressive partnership with Mattel over the
like random stuff that we wouldn't even expect. So we're kind of already seeing the inklings of
success, even if the movie itself hasn't posted massive box office numbers yet.
Yes, absolutely. And it is trending to post pretty massive box office returns. So,
it seems like it is going to pay off in every respect. But you're right. I mean, it's given
them this air of cool and relevance that definitely was not present this time three
or four years ago. Like, Xbox doing a Bobby partnership is not something I would have
guessed about. No, never.
Your article mentions that Mattel allegedly has 45 other films in development. What does
in development actually mean for like a label that is a great question and it means different
things you know that is a very capacious uh term of art so you know there are things that are pretty
far along at this point they have a he-man and the masters of the universe film that is pretty
much poised to enter production they have scripts for a lot of these things but there are other
things that are sort of a twinkle in the eye of jj abrams you know there's no script yet for hot
wheels. So we'll see what happens there. And it really is, I mean, they are rummaging at the very
bottom of the toy box in ways that may or may not pay off ultimately. So it's been pretty interesting
to see the range of IP that they're trying to convert into something with real dramatic and
cinematic potential. Yeah. And obviously there's an easy comparison here with what Mattel is trying
to do to Disney's existing Marvel cinematic universe. But that kind of came with its own
well of existing stories and lore. Mattel doesn't have that same storytelling foundation,
but as you mentioned earlier, some of its toys, like Barbie, do carry a lot of baggage.
So how does that history impact what Mattel is trying to do here and set it apart from
other cinematic universes? Yeah, I think it's a really fine line to walk. I mean,
something like Barbie is appealing because of that baggage. I mean, I think that's kind of
something that you can mine and use for its uh cinematic potential but there are other toys in
their toy box like you know the card game uno they're trying to turn into a film and i simply
don't know how that's going to happen yeah same but godspeed to them uh but it's it's an interesting
kind of double-edged sword because the nostalgia is the thing that they're selling it's the thing
that is the asset in their minds but it's also kind of a curse like if you have something that
people care deeply about, then the expectations are much higher or there are emotions that are
already running high about that subject. And so they're, you know, much more forceful as custodians
of those brands. You know, when Greta Gerwig signed on to do Barbie, they brought her in for
what they call a brand immersion. They took her to the toy workshop, which I also went to as part
of my reporting. And they basically walked her through the entire history of Barbie. And they
said, you know, here are the highs and lows in the history. Here are the characters that, you know,
have been introduced through the years here are the historical boobies here you know and and she
incorporated a lot of that into the plot and in that case it was probably useful but in other
cases the the fear of venturing beyond what would be acceptable to the brand might actually be a
hindrance or if you have something that's you know lesser known or more inert then it's tough to say
whether that will be able to translate to something real on screen okay you went to the
toy workshop what can you tell us oh yeah i mean there's pink as far as the eye can see you know
it's just uh they have the the machines that they use to affix the hair to the dolls they have life
size hot wheels they have multi-story tracks it's it's crazy and um and that is a pilgrimage that
you know jj abrams had to make for hot wheels we've got tom hanks doing major matt mason which
as this toy from the 60s that's actually no longer on shelves. I also sat in on a development
meeting, which was very revealing, where these executives are sort of sitting together and
talking about the ideas that might work for various properties and trying to match a toy
to a genre. You know, they're trying to make the Magic 8-Ball into a horror comedy. They
have all of these ideas in the tank. And that was very instructive in terms of the
likely trajectory of this cinematic universe. But it's not quite Marvel in the sense of
they're not trying to do any crossover events. And maybe they really only need a few of these
to succeed in order to prove themselves, but they're really throwing everything at the
wall at the moment. Yeah. There's a moment in your article
where you mentioned, I think the CEO, Inon Kreese, talking about Masters of the Universe
and saying, there's endless content here. I can see sequel after sequel. And I understand why
endless content is appealing to a studio executive. But as a consumer, again, I think of the MCU,
and I think there are 84 movies and TV shows now that make up the MCU. And I can't help but think,
there's a point when the well runs dry, even if the well keeps going. And there can be too much
of a good thing, right? Are we seeing that kind of play out in this space? Oh yeah. I mean, I think
that the exhaustion is real for the MCU and possibly soon for Mattel, even though very few
of these things have actually come to fruition yet. And I do, I mean, you know, again, we're in
this moment in Hollywood where it seems that on the studio side, these are the things that they're
willing to greenlight. You know, there's a real emphasis on this notion of pre-awareness and the
idea that audiences need to know what they're getting into going into the cinema or they
simply won't show up and I have to say I don't know if that's uh if that's reflected in I mean
it is reflected in the box office in the sense that the top performing films of the you know
the last year were all reboots and sequels you know the top 10 at the box office in 2022
but I don't know you know I think that there is a real desire for original filmmaking and I
I hope that we have not seen the last of that,
but there is this bargain that it seems increasingly filmmakers need to
strike, you know, particularly if you want to take a big swing, like if you,
if you want to do a big budget film, uh,
you need to marry that ambition to a piece of IP, uh,
particularly for an early career filmmaker. Like I,
I spoke with the knee brothers who were working on the He-Man film for Mattel
or even someone like Greta Gerwig who has this fantastic filmography,
but she's never worked with a budget anywhere near this size.
And in those cases, it seems increasingly that this is the deal you have to make.
Yeah. When it comes to executives sitting in their desk and deciding what gets greenlit,
like what information are they using to make those kinds of decisions? Is it just looking back and
saying what's worked well previously? What have been the big hits in the past year? Or is there
more of a formula? I was talking to like a friend who works in the tech industry about this the
other day. And he asked, is there any kind of testing that happens in this industry? The whole
point in the tech industry is to fail as fast as possible. And if you know something's not going to
work, you pivot and you actually put money behind what you know with some degree of certainty will
land. So how are executives deciding and determining what will land? How are they
backing up their bets? Yeah. I mean, I'm sure that this varies from studio to studio and streamer to
streamer but certainly at Mattel there was a lot of talk of four quadrant films you know you want
to hit all of the possible demographics you need it to be broadly commercial theatrical and really
hit all the beats and you know even the slogan of the Bobby movie if you love Bobby this is for you
if you hate Bobby this is for you it seems like an almost impossible thing to hold in one film
but there is this desire to kind of play to as broad a base as possible and to inoculate against
those critiques in ways that will uh you know draw people to the theaters because we're in this
you know particularly we've seen this with the mcu where uh it used to be the case that you had
individual actors who could really draw people draw in audiences and at this point it's the
characters who are the draw you know we've had what five spider-men in the past 15 years you
know it just keeps cycling through people but it's it's the character and the lore and the
storylines that are apparently bringing everyone back, or at least that's the calculus in Hollywood,
this idea that we need to lean on what people already know and have been proven to care about.
But it also does seem like star power carries huge weight here. Yes, it's the character of
Barbie that draws people in, but Margot Robbie is playing Barbie. That's an interesting,
how much of it is the IP and how much of it is the existing brand of the actor that's pulling
someone in. Yeah. I mean, that's a great point. And I do think particularly for Mattel, because
they need to prove themselves in this space and they want to have that air of prestige and show
that they're serious contenders in the entertainment realm. Uh, they do need these
A-listers and these heavyweights to align themselves with, which is why they're sort
of courting people like Margot Robbie and Greta Gerwig and Tom Hanks and Daniel Kaluuya. Uh,
and if you, if you don't have those names, maybe you don't go to see a Bobby movie. You know,
like, I don't know that I would have seen it if it were not Greta Gerwig and Noah Baumbach
and Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling. So, I think that particularly for them as the kind
of newcomers in this space with something to prove, they really do need to lean on,
no, we're a serious operation, look at who's working with us. And I think that's part of
what started this flood of unlikely partnerships. This isn't such an unlikely partnership,
an adaptation that did kind of recently land with viewers came not from toys, but from
video games. Late last year, you wrote about the making of HBO's The Last of Us and how
its creators were aiming to turn this video game into prestige television. And this spring,
Nintendo pairs up with Illumination Studios to make the Mario Brothers movie. How did
these productions break what you call the curse of bad video game adaptations?
I mean, I think a lot of it, particularly in the case of The Last of Us, was about choosing
the right source material. You know, video games are very difficult to adapt to the screen. They're
often non-linear, you know, so much of it is about the act of immersion, the experience of being in
it in that way. And all of that is lost when you become a passive viewer who's experiencing these
things. You know, if there are branching paths in the game and you went one way and the film went
the other, then you as a fan might be disappointed. You know, video game fans are notoriously people
with very strong feelings. So, you know, it's this question of fidelity and also of, you know,
create an experience that is distinct from what you got in the game because you know that you're
never going to have that exact experience replicated in a film as a passive viewer but
it was also about you know to this point about Greta Gerwig being the one to do
Bobby it's about choosing the right talent you know having someone like Craig Mason who did
Chernobyl and who is a great fan of the game but also has proven himself to be capable of
you know something with real emotional heft and uh intensity to it of that type you you felt in
safe hands so and now you know it's swept the emmys in terms of these nominations i think they
got 20 for just a couple of days ago so uh yeah i i think it really is about finding the right
partners and finding the right material that actually does have that dramatic potential so
in that regard bobby seems like uh it's going to do well but i don't know that the partnership
around UNO or something else will be as effective, because that is not necessarily the kind of
property that has cinematic potential. For sure. I'm with you on the skepticism
about UNO, but I'm also ready to be proven wrong. So everyone is talking about AI, right? And super
buzzworthy, whatever. And that's also a huge cause behind the writers and actors in Hollywood
striking. But all this talk brings up an interesting point. It seems like this IP
strategy is based on Hollywood executives almost looking for a copy and paste formula,
something that comes from an existing well of content that can just be replicated and is going
to bring in guaranteed dollars. But where we've seen success with that pulling from the well
is when you have, like you said, really strong creative partnerships, things that are, yes,
pulling from existing worlds, but are pretty wholly original in their attempt at building
that world. What do you think this talk about AI and how that could impact the entertainment
industry, does that support this IP strategy that we've been talking about, or does it actually
kind of undercut it a little bit? Yeah. I mean, I do think that the best
results are the ones that diverge more wildly from what you'd expect. And I think filmmakers
is having the flexibility to take that creative license is the thing that makes these things
great as you're saying like for you know the last of us was pretty faithful but the episode that
everyone talks about is the third episode where you know you have this sort of bottle episode
it's a gay love story inside the universe of the game and that was a plot line that was barely
hinted at in the game it basically doesn't exist it was created wholesale for the show
and it's the most successful moment for one of them so i think it it's if if ai is simply going
to be used to replicate what's come before and certainly there is that executive tendency to
speak in comps you know if you're in the room with these people they'll often be saying you know okay
we want a film that's book smart meets bill and ted you know it's it's sort of about mashing
together these sensibilities of these uh previous titles and i don't know that that's a successful
formula. I think you do need the freedom to innovate and to take a hard left turn,
which Greta Gerwig has certainly done with this one.
As always, people on the program may have interests in the stocks they talk about,
and The Motley Fool may have formal recommendations for or against,
so don't buy or sell stocks based solely on what you hear.
I'm Mary Long. Thanks for listening. We'll see you tomorrow.
Thank you.
