|
Ron (and others),
Thanks for your take on this. In continuing my research, I did find this
article:
Which echoes what you said, but has somewhat different numbers...
specifically:
"During the film's opening week, the studio might take 70 to 80 percent of
gross box office sales. By the fifth or sixth week, the percentage the studio
takes will likely shrink to about 35 percent, said Steven Krams, president of
International Cinema Equipment Co. "
I also found several references to how George Lucas managed to get a full
100% (!) of the box office take for the first two weeks of the last two STAR
WARS films. So, apparently there is nothing like a "standard" deal and each film
gets negotiate for how much the studio will get and how much the theater will
get.
For working purposes, it seems we would be safe enough to say that, on
average, the studio gets 75% of the box-office take for the first two weeks,
then 60% for the third, 50% for the fourth, on down to the where the studio is
only getting about 35% if the film lasts 6 weeks. That gives us something to go
on when trying to gauge "how much money a film made" in comparison to its
reported "production budget" (which is, of course, often vastly over-inflated by
Hollywood accounting practices).
I don't think there's going to be anyway for regular folk to be able
to figure out with much accuracy how much a studio spends for publicity for
a given film... the best we could do would be to come up with a guess.
Still, I think it is reasonable to assume that if a film does twice it's
production budget that it has at least broken even for the studio, particularly
if it does that in the first 2 to 3 weeks, when the studio is getting the lion's
share of the box-office take.
On that basis, MI III made money:
Production Budget = $150 million
Total Box Office (11 weeks) = $393,162,011
... looks like even figuring in $30 million for Promotion and cutting the
studio's take of the remaining $63 million in half, that the film made AT LEAST
30 million in profit for Paramount (and that's *before* any DVD sales,
pay-per-view, rentals and TV sales... which could easily bring in another $100
to $200 million). Seems like claims that MI III "didn't make money" are grossly
exaggerated.
OK, not as much as MI 2, but that film was 6 years ago and even though not
as good as the original, was apparently far better than MI III (which I have not
seen).
But let's take a look at the other Tom Cruise film that came out within the
past year, WAR OF THE WORLDS:
Production Budget = $132 million
Total Box Office (21 weeks) = $591 million
....that had a bigger Promotion budget than MI III, let's call it $50
million. That leaves $277 million of which we'll figure the studio got 50%...for
about $138 million in profit.
So, it seems Tom Cruise's last two films... just within the past year...
"only" made for Paramount something like $170 - $200 million in
theater profits alone (and what, twice that in DVD and other sales)? Maybe
$300 to $400 million TOTAL in the past year or so alone? Well, heck...
No wonder Paramount dumped him. I mean, somebody who can only bring in $300
to $400 million a year in profits just isn't pulling his weight...
Only in Hollywood. But the truth of the matter seems that if one digs below the talk show
jive, the politically-correct knee-jerk outrage over "women troubles" and
other such Entertainment Tonight chatter, that Tom Cruise's "star" still
has quite a bit of luster left, even if he is aging a bit (which didn't
hurt the careers of Sean Connery or Harrison Ford or many others)
I'm sure there are other people who can run even tighter, more accurate
numbers than mine and come to the same conclusion, so it's no wonder that
Cruise/Wagner productions was able to announce that they have already lined up a
$100 million dollar revolving line of credit for their independent production
company's future operations.
I sure hope for the sake of Viacom's shareholders that Sumner Redstone has
a couple of mega-star rabbits hidden in his desk drawer somewhere to replace
those "weak" profits Cruise has been making for him.
-- JR
----- Original Message -----
From: Ron
Wisberg
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 4:59
Subject: Re: [MOPO] Behind the Blow Box office take isn't that hard to find out but box office profit is much
harder.
It's basically done by number of weeks in box-office. The first two weeks a
theater generally only receives 35%. There may be the rare 30% or 40% but it is
rare. 35% for the first two weeks is a rule (unless wei're talking independents,
and we aren't.) After those first two weeks theaters can take 70-80% depending
on the week. Of course, theaters live off of concessions, but studios don't make
as much as people often think. MI3 is a great example. The Studio lost out big
on theatrical. Out of the $150 million it says it spent it is only
really recouping about 80 of the 150 domestically. The special editiion DVD
for MI2 sold close to three million copies - each of those came with a ticket to
MI3. Perhaps a fourth touch advantage, now most theaters don't accept those in
the first two weeks, but after that point, the studio (yes the studio) is stuck
paying the theater their 70% share. And they report it as box office. That's
right that $8 ticket in that $15 DVD is actually reported as a full ticket
purchase. HMMM
Basically, on a film that scores roughly $150 million, with free tickets on
the loose in droves, the studio is likely to receive back domestically about
$70-80 million. If this were a film with great legs, that could could
easily grow (ie. Meet the Fockers and Pirates of the Carribean). Of course
there's overseas too but trust me, that's an even bigger cluster often.
Plus add this in. If anyone has managed to watch a film within the last 5
years without seeing more than one production company involved I would be
completely amazed. Most seem to have 6 or 7. They all get a cut. SOME even on
the gross. If a film make $150 and the Cruise Production company (only used for
example) get's 5% gross, well, that snatches 7.5 million from the primary
financing studios.
BUT wait, there is a democracy involved. Wouldn't the Cruise facility have
had to put in 5% of the cost in order to get 5% of the gross? YES. You hit it on
the head. Except Paramount footed the bill up to 10 million dollars. So
Paramount under the guise of Tom Cruise productions (not his companies name)
puts it's money in, and Tom Cruise takes his net or gross, take your pick
out.
It's this fun difference between net or gross profits within poduction
companies that Hollywood has often relied upon for their confusing
bookkeeping.
Tonight I watched Beast from 20,000 Fathoms. Give me that film and it's
poster over this bollocks every day of the week. Ron
PS. Seriously, would love to have that poster. Leaving the PC now to watch
Them, love that posters, it's in the main room right behind me while I watch the
tele.
JR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: A question:
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.
|
- Re: [MOPO] Behind the Blow JR
- Re: [MOPO] Behind the Blow Ron Wisberg
- Re: [MOPO] Behind the Blow JR
- Re: [MOPO] Behind the Blow Ron Wisberg
- Re: [MOPO] Behind the Blow Phil Edwards Cinema Arts
- Re: [MOPO] Behind the Blow Joseph Bonelli
