Contemplating divorce? DreamWorks boss Steven Spielberg at the Obama / Clinton debate in LA earlier this year. Photograph: KPA/Zuma / Rex Features
Rumours are abounding in Tinseltown that Paramount and DreamWorks are about to go their separate ways. If you want to get up to speed with the story, The New York Times has all the sordid details.
If the rumours turn out to be true, it could turn into a divorce every bit as messy as Macca v Mills. Over at Deadline Hollywood Daily, Nikki Finki sniffs at the NY Times for only just cottoning on to the worst kept secret in Hollywood, and sums up Spielberg's position succinctly: "if he stays he's paid nothing, if he goes he's paid a lot".
But they do raise a pertinent point: if the studios do call an end to their union, who will get the proverbial children? Whatever the minutiae of the deal, Spielberg's absence could result in a lot of studio execs getting a sudden dose of cold feet - while Paramount will be keen to have their slice of Spielberg's upcoming projects, including the live action version of Tintin.
You might rightly ask whether all of this isn't academic to the film fan, who'll still get to watch the good stuff whoever sticks their name at the bottom of the credits, in whatever convoluted order. But, as the SlashFilm blog notes, the results of the reshuffle are already being felt: JJ Abrams' Star Trek movie has been pushed back to 2009 and looks set to affect the release date of several other key blockbusters. Now that the writers' strike has finally been resolved, another high profile dispute is the last thing we, or the industry, need ...
