Disney vs. Paramount

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
AndyLGR said:
KOTCS, despite being bad, still made took nearly $800m. Thats good going in anyones book. The argument then is does that mean Indy 5 would make money or would the fact KOTCS wasn't great affect the performance of an Indy 5?

This is such a rich vein for discussion. I feel like Crystal Skull made a lot of that money on goodwill alone, the gratitude to finally have a beloved icon back on the screen following a near twenty year sabbatical. Some of the really positive early reviews smack of this as well.

Indy 5 would not have that advantage, and I do think that the legacy of Crystal Skull would factor in as well. I still think Indy 5 is money in the bank, but it won't get to be the second biggest film of the year again just by rolling out of bed. On the other hand, with strong word of mouth it could end up surpassing the fourth film.

I'd imagine that the marketing would be dramatically different, too. Crystal Skull's advertising theme was very much Indy's Back! the end. The strategy would have to be different this time, probably playing up that this is the character's last hurrah.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Udvarnoky said:
The strategy would have to be different this time, probably playing up that this is the character's last hurrah.

Thereby completing a trilogy of final adventures.

The Last Crusade

The Last Straw

The Last Breath



When Indy dies in #5 prairie dogs and monkeys will emerge from the woodland into the glade in which Indy's body lies. They'll dance a funny little dance and sing a lament before carrying him off to <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">a Paramount shaped mountain</span> a magical castle where he'll be placed in a glass coffin.

A princess will eventually arrive, take one look at the body in the coffin and remark, "Aren't you a little old for an action adventurer? I'd just as soon kiss a frog."

Belloq, now half-man, half-machine and wheezing like an aqualung, emerges from the shadows: "I can arrange that. You could use a good kiss. But it'll have to be a quickie as I can't breathe for long without the mask."

And they all live unhappily ever after. Apart from Indy who's dead.
 

Moedred

Administrator
Staff member
Along with the International Licensing Industry Merchandisers' Association 2012 list to which Le Saboteur linked, The Licensing Letter has a similar annual assessment. (The full lists are behind pay walls.) Surprisingly the Avengers is way down at $201 million with stuff I've never heard of. Except for WWE the most profitable franchises aim young, really young. And it turns out girls want stuff too.

1. Disney Princess, Disney, $1,518 M
2. Star Wars & The Clone Wars, Disney/Lucasfilm, $1,467 M
3. Hello Kitty, Sanrio, $1,080 M
4. Cars, Disney/Pixar, $931 M
5. Pooh, Disney, $929 M
6. Mickey & Friends, Disney, $774 M
7. WWE, WWE, $596 M
8. Angry Birds, Rovio, $590 M
9. Peanuts, Iconix/Peanuts Worldwide, $542 M
10. Toy Story, Disney/Pixar, $530
 

Dr. Gonzo

New member
Montana Smith said:
Thereby completing a trilogy of final adventures.

The Last Crusade

The Last Straw

The Last Breath



When Indy dies in #5 prairie dogs and monkeys will emerge from the woodland into the glade in which Indy's body lies. They'll dance a funny little dance and sing a lament before carrying him off to <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">a Paramount shaped mountain</span> a magical castle where he'll be placed in a glass coffin.

A princess will eventually arrive, take one look at the body in the coffin and remark, "Aren't you a little old for an action adventurer? I'd just as soon kiss a frog."

Belloq, now half-man, half-machine and wheezing like an aqualung, emerges from the shadows: "I can arrange that. You could use a good kiss. But it'll have to be a quickie as I can't breathe for long without the mask."

And they all live unhappily ever after. Apart from Indy who's dead.
71199-speechless-nod-mind-blown-gif-Ytfs.gif
 

The Reaper

New member
Le Saboteur said:
Where does Indiana Jones fall in on this list? Don't know. I would bet dollars to doughnuts that it barely breaks a billion over thirty years. With that in mind, let's pencil out a fifth Indy movie's total possible budget:

$100-million (upfront to Lucas);
$100-million (upfront to Spielberg);
$50-million (upfront to Ford. Salary plus points);

Uh what? I know we have moved on since this post but considering people are taking what you say as gospel but aren't calling you out on this utter nonsense is troubling.

What director has ever gotten 100 mil upfront in the history of the cinema? Or even this mount as a payment at all? Sure, perhaps, MAYBE, as producer a director could take home something like this on a massive BO hit but upfront? What are you smoking? :confused:

And what does Lucas have to do with it? 100 mil to write a story? C'mon. I don't mean to be rude but this is all hogwash.

Same with Ford. Upfront this would be the biggest actor payout in the history of movies. 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. :mad:
 

Le Saboteur

Active member
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. :mad:

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.
 

Grizzlor

Well-known member
I don't get it, the film wasn't made because George Lucas could not or did not want to come up with a story. Then Disney buys him out this year, and now the film can't be made? Nonsense. The ONLY reason this film hasn't been made is the SAME reason the fourth one took a decade and a half. George Lucas.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Grizzlor said:
I don't get it, the film wasn't made because George Lucas could not or did not want to come up with a story. Then Disney buys him out this year, and now the film can't be made? Nonsense. The ONLY reason this film hasn't been made is the SAME reason the fourth one took a decade and a half. George Lucas.

Look on the bright side. George Lucas spent almost 20 years not making KOTCS.

As fan-service Disney will spend another 20 years not making KOTCS part 2.

:p
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Montana Smith said:
Look on the bright side. George Lucas spent almost 20 years not making KOTCS.

As fan-service Disney will spend another 20 years not making KOTCS part 2.

:p

The idea of no more Indy just lights up your bat signal, doesn't it, Nolanite?
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Raiders112390 said:
The idea of no more Indy just lights up your bat signal, doesn't it, Nolanite?

0eb2c02f895b0b27b7afbf768328e215c6440315344fe0c871c7b1f76d88c915.jpg



In fact, Lucas and Nolan have something in common. One of them made one too many Indy films, and the other one too many Batman films.
 

kongisking

Active member
Le Saboteur said:
Studio Ghibili's work is required viewing.

Rejoice, Saboteur. My girlfriend, who is a Ghibiliphile, recently arm-twisted me into watching Princess Mononoke, which I was deeply impressed by. So count me starting to finally gain respect for that genre.
 

Moedred

Administrator
Staff member
Le Saboteur said:
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.
Okay, so there are more unseen contracts than you can shake a stick at. Encumbrances indeed. I would place Ford and Spielberg's final take at $50M-75M each, depending on box office. A few years ago I would have speculated $100M each, but with 2013 representin' on the box office bomb leader board, expectations for some are dialing back.

If Lucas keeping the story flame alive is true and not just a stall tactic, I simply hope some legal wrangling and screenwriting movement happens next year. Then maybe some bloated 2015 franchise hopefuls will crash against the rocks and clear a path. Make some popcorn!
 

The Reaper

New member
Le Saboteur said:
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.


.

I said nothing about money through bonuses and grosses. YOU said upfront and I see no explanation on how Lucas and Spielberg get 100 mill UPFRONT. That is lunacy.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
The SHENANAGINS surrounding Paramount and the "It's a Wonderful Life: The Rest of the Story" sequel to be released seem to prove that they'll protect their cash cow no matter how old it is.

It's certainly a model of what may come should Disney decide to move forward with the ... FRANCHISE!...
 

Le Saboteur

Active member
The Reaper said:
I said nothing about money through bonuses and grosses. YOU said upfront and I see no explanation on how Lucas and Spielberg get 100 mill UPFRONT. That is lunacy.

I said upfront, but the lunacy is that you have absolutely no idea how modern film financing works. Receiving a percentage of the film's total box office is not a bonus, incentive, or perk. It's a standard contractual tool for studio's to defray their own production costs. It's calculated into every film's projected profitability by the sharp pencil boys, and a movie wont begin to be considered profitable until a certain plateau is reached. If it doesn't begin to pencil out, said film won't be greenlit. It's as simple as that. See Moedred's links to John Carter and The Lone Ranger. No further explanation is needed, because The Beards will receive what they will because of who they are, not because of what they may or may not do.

Pale Horse said:
The SHENANAGINS surrounding Paramount and the "It's a Wonderful Life: The Rest of the Story" sequel to be released seem to prove that they'll protect their cash cow no matter how old it is.

Shenanigans? Hardly. That was the necessary and proper move. The world does not need to to hear the rest of It's a Wonderful Life's story. It ended with George being reunited with his family and a rosier look on what he's accomplished. What more needs to be said?

That said,

Forbidden Eye said:
I see no reason why Paramount won't fight for it...

Pale Horse said:
...prove that they'll protect their cash cow no matter how old it is...

This deal happened much, much sooner than I had anticipated. Since it happened completely behind closed doors, however, it stands to reason that Paramount completely rolled over. Not like they had much choice, though.

As I initially mentioned, there is zero value in retaining distribution rights if you have nothing to distribute. And never will if they remain implacable. Paramount's chief realized the value in getting something for nothing and took Disney's offer. The initial snippet from the press release indicating Paramount "will receive a financial participation on any future films that are produced and released" sounds very, very similar to their Marvel deal. The real question is how long will Paramount receive their royalty? In perpetuity? Plausible, but I don't see Disney giving away money for a significant stretch of time. Especially considering Paramount's rather banner year; out of the eight films they've released so far, none of them have underperformed outside of, maybe, Top Gun 3D. That probably made up any losses in home video sales, though. Hansel & Gretel was a monster hit globally, and even Pain & Gain made a nice bit of coin in respect to its budget. Anchorman is going to be huge.

It'll be interesting to see the full statement once it's released, but I don't think we'll learn anything new. Paramount will have received a nice chunk of change from whatever was in Mickey's dish at the moment, a percentage of future box office receipts, and has subsequently freed themselves of advertising and distribution expenses that they can direct into other in house projects.

Was Bruckheimer part of the deal? Lost in the shuffle kerfuffle was Paramount inking a first-look deal with Bruckheimer once his contract with The Mouse expires in April of 2014.

Forbidden Eye said:
...Sony... their movies don't often generate... hallmark ornaments

Funny, I just bought a whole mess of Spider-Man Christmas ornaments.

The obvious takeaway from the whole thing is Disney is going to make more Indiana Jones movies. Maybe. They could do a teevee series, but regardless they have to produce something in order to distribute it. Either way, it's not unsurprising; Iger specifically named Star Wars and Indiana Jones in his initial conference call.

So, when? 2014's out for obvious reasons. 2015? No. The studios are already dangerously close to cannibalizing each other, and the future AARP president would be grist for the mill if lined up against Star Wars, The Avengers 2, Justice League, the new Bourne flick, M:I5, Terminator 5, and Jurassic World among others. 2016 is less crowded, but I still don't know. 2017 looks like a safe bet, but time will tell. It's going to ultimately depend on the direction Disney wants to take the series.



The Hollywood Reporter said:
But then, there's Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. As much as the Star Wars prequels are held up as a sign of "ruined childhoods," it was Crystal Skull that really reinforced the idea that you can't go home again. It was, for the most part, everyone from the first three movies back doing what they do, but it felt? off, somehow. The magic was gone, for any number of reasons -- the story was too convoluted, too ridiculous; Harrison Ford being 66 instead of 47 (or 39, as he was for Raiders) and therefore being less convincing -- less comfortable -- in the action scenes; the idea of Indy as a father in the first place, never mind to a rebellious teen, which therefore turns him into an authority figure after a career of being just the opposite.

Full article can be found here.

Disney will definitely be looking at ways to further monetize the series. For example, maybe a good Indy game can be made. Naughty Dog's second team is looking for a project. How about a family action series on ABC? Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. could use a companion show.

Variety has a few ideas they've discussed.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
This is terrible news.(n) I want Indy 5's opening shot to be a Paramount Logo Dissolve, dammit.:mad:
 

Le Saboteur

Active member
Stoo said:
This is terrible news.(n) I want Indy 5's opening shot to be a Paramount Logo Dissolve, dammit.:mad:

Keep the pitchforks and torches under wraps for now. Rooting around in the underbelly of the Marvel deal provided one very interesting point regarding this: Disney considered Paramount & Marvel to be synonymous and kept Marvel's fanfare paired with Mount Ben Lomond. In short, Disney made the smart move in keeping the castle out of the credits and netted ~$1.4-billion on The Avengers & Iron Man 3.

That reminds me: Kevin Feige, Marvel Entertainment's Co-President, threw me a curve ball a couple of weeks back. In some interview, he mentioned that they were now fully set up as their own independent studio (under the warmth of The Mouse's firm embrace, of course) and that Thor: The Dark World would be the first movie to be released solely under their banner. No castle, no mountain. I was fully expecting to see the castle in future Marvel flicks.*

* - I have yet to see the new Thor, but anybody here who's seen it can confirm its non-existence.

I wasn't expecting that move, but it makes a lot of sense. Most of Iger's moves over the past few years have been attempting to shore up Disney's finances and indemnify the company against loss. With Marvel, Dreamworks, and now Lucasfilm in house, Disney proper can stave off financial ruin and focus its very, very specific type of entertainment.

You might end up seeing that Paramount fade-in after all. The question then becomes, 'for how long?' The Marvel deal lasted for basically one picture, but the early language of this deal indicates that there's some longevity to the terms. I still have an incredibly hard time seeing The House of Mouse handing over money in perpetuity even if the per-film percentage is sub-3%, but for two, three pictures? Sure. Maybe more if that rate gradually declines over time. I suspect that there's a drop dead date on these terms, but we'll have to wait and see until more information comes out.

Right now I'm expecting that future films will ultimately be released solely under Lucasfilm's banner. It's just a matter of when.

Paramount's happy because they're going to get more money for nothing, money that they can pump into their own projects, and Disney's happy because they now control the marketing message in addition to the series' future. Marketing as we all should know by now feeds right into merchandising. Adventure Friends here we come!

I only partially jest. You can't milk something that has it's focus on a single individual; you have to mix it up. More so when your actor of record is an AARP member in the twilight of his career, so I wouldn't be surprised if Disney conveniently loses Ford's number when it comes to casting.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Le Saboteur said:
With Marvel, Dreamworks, and now Lucasfilm in house, Disney proper can stave off financial ruin and focus its very, very specific type of entertainment.
Re. "Disney proper": Rhetorically speaking, does this concept even exist anymore?:confused:
Le Saboteur said:
You might end up seeing that Paramount fade-in after all. The question then becomes, 'for how long?'
That would be sweet. How long it would last is anybody's guess but I do feel that the Paramount Logo Dissolve is a tradition that must be acknowledged in any future theatrical release.
Le Saboteur said:
Paramount's happy because they're going to get more money for nothing, money that they can pump into their own projects, and Disney's happy because they now control the marketing message in addition to the series' future. Marketing as we all should know by now feeds right into merchandising. Adventure Friends here we come!
Your link to the video didn't work for me but, yeah, I know "Money For Nothing" by Dire Straits very well and catch your drift, Sabo.;)
 

kongisking

Active member
Eh, as long as the logo of the current studio financing the movie dissolves into a similarly-shaped object, I don't care much who makes an Indy movie. I'm willing to tweak the tradition to allow for that.
 
Top