Box Office Bombs Have Paramount Losing Over $500M in Next 2 Years

[Rekkapryde]

The truth of the matter and why only production costs are posted is because studios DO NOT REVEAL how much is spent on marketing and advertising. That's a totally different financial budget that is being maintained and it also has its own revenue. Even though a lot of money is spent, there's also a lot of money from sponsors, brands, franchises, and merchandise that's coming in as well in the marketing campaign of a film. So, the numbers are rather unknown due to a lot of unknown factors that comes along with marketing. That's why it is disingenuous for so-called articles making up fabricated numbers without source or proof of how much a studio spend on marketing. That's a totally different budget in which is taken care of. Financers have a capital budget plan with a payback period and net present value of in and out cash flows. So all of that marketing money has already been factored in and not related to the actual gross numbers of the movie itself.

And a nutshell, it is easier to just account for how much the movie was specifically MADE and how much money that movie specifically earned in theaters. For a film to be viewed as a success, it should recoup double its budget.

Yup.

Transformers about to save Paramount AGAIN.

BaydaGawd here to save the day again for their asses!!!!

 

[Ain't That Something]

They do. That's why you take them on as partners

So my question is do those partners get a cut of the movie proceeds or is it a way for these companies to advertise of the movie appeal and expand their brand? Not sure If I phrase the question right?

 

[MartyMcFly]

Yup.

Rule of thumb is that you pretty much have to rake in double what you make production wise to have a chance to break even.

You gotta pray for good licensing and movie tie in deals as well as good bluray/dvd/streaming numbers to even break even after doubling your production numbers with the box office receipts.

I still don't understand how Turtles 2 did that much worse than the first.

And again with Beh Hurr....who asked for that shyt???

The ben hur thing could've been better and bigger but i feel like it was a sign of the studio making a decision years ago when something like 300 was hot and then product stalling, stalling, stalling and then when they finally released it, the moment had passed.

And I think the turtles thing is a sign of a movie having a big box office the first time around but there being no actual enthusiasm for it. In this day and age, it's easy for movies to clean up at the box office due to inflated ticket costs, international markets, 3D costs, etc. So if a movie makes 400 million or 500 million worldwide, or even a billion like Alice In Wonderland, that's not always indicative of audience fervor for more of it. And I think that's the problem hollywood finds themselves in at the moment. How do you determine when a movie's success translates to desire for a sequel or if its truly just the confluence of a lot of different factors?

 

[Street Knowledge]

I am no expert and I could have told Paramount that nobody was going to go see a Zoolander sequel.

'Zoolander 2': What We Can Learn From Its Box Office Failure

 

[ZEB WALTON]

i wonder which brain surgeon up there was like "the streets are really wanting a new ben hur boss"

even my pops whos watched ben hur 10000000 times was

 

[MartyMcFly]

So my question is do those partners get a cut of the movie proceeds or is it a way for these companies to advertise of the movie appeal and expand their brand? Not sure If I phrase the question right?

Nah once they've made their investments, that's that. Hopefully they recoup their money in selling their products. McDonald's didn't get a cut of Batman Returns when they invested in the movie and did the happy meal thing, but the money they did invest meant when the movie came out and wasn't at all what they thought, they had a seat at the table to complain to WB about the content of the movie and how they were pulling their marketing dollars from it

 

[Doomsday]

ok, if that's the case, why don't they just say that the total movie budget is $250M instead of $135M then????

They do. Don't listen to these idiots man. They just come up with any reason to give something an L.

Universal/Paramount and those major conglomerates own everything. Marketing doesn't cost them money like that. Anything over their budget is a profit.

 

[gluvnast]

so you're telling me that these billion dollar companies aren't keeping track of the hundreds of millions they spend on promoting these big budget films?????

that lack of accountability wreaks of gross incompetance.

As I say before, the marketing and advertising department is separate. The budgeting for that has its own payback period. Keep in mind there's a lot of money they're making through their advertising game too.

Here's a link to the many different alternate ways that movies make money:

16 different ways that films make money

 

[David_TheMan]

Viacom losing their CEO and I here that Sumner's daughter might be consolidating as well.
Its going to be interesting.

 

[Ain't That Something]

Nah once they've made their investments, that's that. Hopefully they recoup their money in selling their products. McDonald's didn't get a cut of Batman Returns when they invested in the movie and did the happy meal thing, but the money they did invest meant when the movie came out and wasn't at all what they thought, they had a seat at the table to complain to WB about the content of the movie and how they were pulling their marketing dollars from it

So if these studios have partners in advertising that cover a portion of advertising cost, and partners that cover some of the production cost with product placing ***cough Mike Bay****, it makes it impossible to do an outside profit cost analysis because unless you have insider knowledge of the books. It's really guesstimating at best and bullshyt at worst, and these studios could be crying wolf on how much is being made and loss

 

[Ziggiy]

Who the fukk gave the greenlight to Ben Hur?!?!

All them executives and marketing dudes be up in those offices sniffing coke and smashing hookers. They don't give a fukk

 

[MartyMcFly]

So if these studios have partners in advertising that cover a portion of advertising cost, and partners that cover some of the production cost with product placing ***cough Mike Bay****, it makes it impossible to do an outside profit cost analysis because unless you have insider knowledge of the books. It's really guesstimating at best and bullshyt at worst, and these studios could be crying wolf on how much is being made and loss

The accountants know. Ultimately, that's the most important part

 

[BXKingPin82]

 

[Ill Lou Malnati]

No one ever asked for a Ben-Hur remake. Do these studios do any research at all as to what public would like to see?

 

[Still FloW]

Nearly every movie mentioned has something in common, they're all either sequels or remakes.

cause these old racists crackas keep pouring money into bullshyt instead of giving talented upcoming actors and directors a shot..

thats why hollywood been dead, no originality anymore..

which is why CBM are thriving, them shyts are a breath of fresh air...