<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n
The movie business teaches you to be wary of big spenders. Broad Green came and went in a blur of miscalculated flops. Annapurna downsized after several reckless buying sprees and finally stopped acquiring movies altogether. Now comes whispers that Canadian investment studio BRON \u2014 which helped finance films like \u201cJoker\u201d and \u201cLicorice Pizza\u201d \u2014 is going down a similar path.<\/p>\n
Sources tell me that the studio launched by husband-and-wife team Aaron and Brenda Gilbert in 2010 laid off several senior roles and will merge its film and TV divisions into a single unit. Rather than produce the live-action features, I’m told that BRON is now working to secure new corporate partners as it restructures its business model around its BRON Digital division (in its previous incarnation, BRON’s financing came in part from Canadian pension plans) . That means a renewed focus on animation and games designed to create new franchises, not the usual blend of blockbusters and A-list auteurs that it has supported in the past. The company declined comment.<\/p>\n
More from IndieWire<\/strong><\/p>\nBRON might seem like yet another company feeling the pandemic squeeze, but over the last few years, it has become one of the most prolific film-financing entities in North America, particularly for movies made in the $50 million range. The company’s track record also includes everything from \u201cJudas and the Black Messiah,\u201d to Clint Eastwood’s \u201cThe Mule,\u201d \u201cGhostbusters: Afterlife\u201d and \u201cHouse of Gucci.\u201d This list doesn’t signal a collective vision so much as an array of them, which isn’t the worst strategy in an era defined by fickle viewers. In a different world, BRON’s profile might have inspired it to market sweatshirts to compete with the A24 fashion set.<\/p>\n
\u201cJoker,\u201d co-financed with Warner Bros., grossed $1 billion worldwide and made it clear that big theatrical movies with innovative high concepts had serious business potential. Studios could mitigate their risk factor; BRON could lean into that risk for serious upside. With the pandemic, that model made less sense. \u201cHouse of Gucci\u201d flopped hard. \u201cGhostbusters\u201d made $200 million worldwide but fell far short of the $650 million that investors expected.<\/p>\n
Story continues<\/button><\/p>\nMovies greenlit pre-pandemic were no longer sufficiently theatrical in the post-Covid market. Several of the titles BRON financed for Sony sold to streamers, including the Tom Hanks WWII thriller \u201cGreyhound\u201d (Apple), Kevin Hart comedy \u201cFatherhood\u201d (Netflix), and the Ron Howard Thai cave rescue drama \u201c13 Lives\u201d (Amazon) . This string of setbacks underscores the bottom line: A financing entity dedicated to movies and only movies doesn’t make any sense.<\/p>\n
BRON’s new direction includes Web3 applications, with blockchain games and NFT components being discussed, but BRON Digital isn’t new; it has a core staff of 65 employees and twice as many who work for the division in some capacity worldwide. It’s no surprise that the company would turn to its other assets now. Consider the precedent: Annapurna has generated more headlines lately for projects out of its interactive division like third-person cat adventure game \u201cStray\u201d (which, holy shit, this cat-lover really needs to play) and its investment in the Tony-winning musical \u201cA Strange Loop.\u201d<\/p>\n
BRON hasn’t entirely given up on feature films. While the company will double down on IP undertakings like its animated series \u201cFables\u201d and \u201cGossamer,\u201d I’m told that it may continue to invest in films budgeted at under $10 million \u2014 a pittance by Hollywood standards, but also the sweet spot for ambitious lo-fi narratives where some of the best cinema gets made.<\/p>\n\n