World Wrestling Entertainment Is Serious About Movies

A shift in the creative model will see a reduced emphasis on the star power of WWE talent and will instead use the company's players in a more supportive role. Higher-profile thespians such as Danny Glover, who is in the upcoming Brother's Keeper, will be utilized to help propel a WWE project, as opposed to a Steve Austin or a John Cena.

I completely agree with this change. In fact, I've been advocating for the wrestlers to be put in the background and to let strong cinematic concepts come to the forefront of the marketing paradigm. On paper, I agree that Cena should sell movie tickets; in practice, it hasn't worked out as well as expected, as I discovered when 12 Rounds hit theaters last March.

You just have to use a little imagination to understand how this could change WWE Studios for the better. Look at the Undertaker. If WWE continued its old model, he would topline a new horror franchise featuring an antihero from beyond. Nothing wrong with that idea, but again, wrestlers in starring roles don't stimulate the level of excitement that leads to the kind of returns on invested capital desired by all involved.

But, I bet it would work better if the Undertaker took on a smaller role. What if it were a horror anthology picture that was hosted by the wrestler a la the Cryptkeeper from Tales from the Crypt? What if cheap, up-and-coming talent starred in the actual segments of the theoretical anthology to drive the box office? Something along those lines might be more appealing to moviegoers (heck, that premise might even make for a fun television series).

This is exactly the kind of thing WWE wants to do, from my read of the situation, and I'm glad management intends on fighting for its movie division. That's because I believe movies could very well be a significant area of growth in the future. By looking at films as an investment and not solely as a synergistic showcase for its stars, the company is making a smart decision. In fact, WWE must accept promoting projects with none of its talent attached if the casting needs dictate.

Now for the cons of the new strategy. Variety highlights an altered stance on budget expenditures: Roughly $5 million will be allocated for each venture. There's no question this is prudent, but you know what? I think management should try to make some films for even less. The first Saw picture, as an example, cost less than $5 million (and, aptly enough, starred the aforementioned Glover). Making solid, profitable films for less than $5 million can be done. And even though a $5 million budget does eliminate a lot of risk, I say a $3 million budget is something to be aggressively strived for if WWE is serious about putting its studio back on track.

Shareholders will have to be patient as the company makes these investments as they will affect cash flows. But I'm actually very bullish on this new attitude toward the financial and creative aspects of the filmmaking process; I'm convinced it possesses a good chance of paying dividends down the road. As I learn more about the changes, I may even want to become a shareholder myself.

Disclosure: I don't own any company mentioned; positions can change without notice.