The Reaper said:
I think you bloated this cost to justify your own opinion which is fine but it leads me to question why you are even here. Are you not a fan of Indy, Mr. Negative Nancy? I really don't get it.
Do you want to stand by your statement?
Okay.
Ready?
Johnny Depp has made ~$350-million to date off of those
Pirates of the Caribbean movies. For the fifth movie, he?s reported to walk away with $75-million in salary, plus points. Once all of the receipts are tallied he?ll probably skate with $100-to-125-million. So, we?ve already torpedoed your argument, but let?s go on.
Did you see Anger Management? If so, I?m sorry. You should ask for your money back. Adam Sandler, however, was paid $25-million in salary ? that?s before cameras ever rolled ? and received a percentage of the gross that put his total compensation in the neighborhood of $65-million.
Robert Downey, Jr. made $50-million just for appearing in
The Avengers. He also received points that likely put his total compensation into the $75-million range. Depending on his new deal for the third
Iron Man, and the second and third
Avengers movie, he?s supposed to be pocketing $100-million per picture.
Guess how much your buddy Harrison walked away with from
Kingdom of the Crystal Skull? $65-million. So it?s not out of the realm of possibility that he?d only get $50-million for a fifth Indiana Jones movie given the bad taste the
movie has left in many peoples? mouths.
An upfront expense doesn?t necessarily mean a studio executive hands [insert celebrity here] an oversized check during a photo-op. No, but it is an expense that eats into a movies profitability. Marquee players routinely receive deals that begin putting money in their pocket the moment the studio recoups production and advertising costs. So, let?s say a movie costs $200-million to bring to market and the star is under contract for a percentage of the profits. Once that $200-million is recouped, I am now obliged to pay said star two of every three dollars, for example, I take in over the life of the movie. That includes the backend as well; i.e., home video sales, syndication, etc.
So, again, it isn?t that hard to imagine that Ford & The Beards together put $100-million of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull?s gross receipts into their pocket. Take out the $60-million Paramount owes to the various theatre chains (domestic theatres keep 20% of gross receipts) and the $200-million the studio reportedly owes to foreign theatres ? who are reputed to keep 50% of all receipts ? and that wonderful $800-million in global box office looks decidedly worse.
You may want to change your handle.
Before we address the echo chamber?
Moedred said:
Saboteur, how do you figure Lucas would earn more that $0.00 for an Indy sequel?
How do you propose he doesn?t? He?s going to receive, at the very minimum, an Executive Producer credit worth with several millions. The kicker though, is what did he and Spielberg receive in return for handing Paramount lifetime distribution rights? A percentage of the global box seems standard, and if that contract exists independent of Disney?s acquisition, then they?ll have to honor the terms of that previous deal.
Seen a Batman movie lately? Read a Batman comic? Viewed a Batman teevee show? How about played a Batman video game? If so, you might have noticed a rather unique credit:
Created by Bob Kane
For about twenty years now the Bob Kane Estate has received a royalty for every comic, game, action figure, show, and movie. Why would Lucas not retain some small stake in his empire? He?s bound to have had a sharp lawyer carve out some small percentage that may be infinitesimal to the kind of returns Disney is looking at, but it will be significant to the likes of you and I. I wouldn?t be surprised to see a similar credit on future Lucasfilm projects.
Forbidden Eye said:
Why wouldn't [Paramount] want to hang on to the rights?
Q: What is the value of having distribution rights if you have nothing to distribute?
A: Nothing.
In Paramount?s case they have zero chance to become the license holder. So, it makes sense to take Disney?s walk away money, because it absolves them from advertising expenditures and puts money into their pocket to develop in-house projects like
Mission: Impossible,
Star Trek, and
Transformers.
Probably bigger than that last Spider-Man movie, which you seem convinced is somehow preventing us from seeing more Indy.
Spider-Man had ~$750-million to
Kingdom's ~$780-million. Now guess which was more profitable? But that's not the point in singling out this particular comment.
I know public education is failing in this country, but you've spectacularly failed at reading comprehension. I suggest you read through it again.