Sab's just providing the economic proof to support what others have been saying for years.
Disney vs. Paramount
- Thread starter Moedred
- Start date
Le Saboteur
Active member
Pale Horse said:
Not that it matters when people like, say, Grizzlor think Kingdom of the Crystal Skull did $600-million in profit. This despite the fact that it had to do ~$400-million just to break even*. Box Office Revenue ≠ Profit.
* - Crystal Skull's P & A costs were almost the same as the production budget.
Despite the rather obvious economic evidence against ever seeing another Indiana Jones movie with Ford & The Beards attached, I don't find the numbers to ultimately be the biggest stumbling black. It's the intangible qualities of the character/series/whatever that are going to be the biggest hindrance. More on that later, though.
Pale Horse said:
This right here is a very important aspect of the series' future. Specifically, how does Disney view the Indiana Jones license? Is it franchiseable? A tent-pole, non-franchise picture? Something else entirely? Where does it fit in with the very strong 'youth movement' going on in Hollywood right now? Specifically, the idea that the leads need to be approximately the same age as the target demographic or they won't go see the flick in question.
Jay Rasulo said:
He was directly referencing the dismal performance of The Lone Ranger way back in September of last year, but it does seem that Disney has learned those lessons Moedred mentioned in the beginning of this thread.
The Hollywood Reporter said:
Full article: Disney CFO Reflects on 'Lone Ranger': Cap Spending on Tentpole, Nonfranchise Movies.
Last edited:
Le Saboteur
Active member
Grizzlor said:
Milliones said:
kongisking said:
Grizzlor said:
DIrishB said:
I've hoped that somebody would tell me where all this profit got stashed away, but since it's failed to materialize I thought I would throw some numbers at you. Feel free to ignore them, though. I'm just wittering on the Dock of the Bay.
$786,636,033 (Total Box Office)
-$185,000,000 (Production Budget)
-$140,000,000 (P&A Costs)
-$234,717,457 (International theatres keep a minimum 50% of all receipts)
-$63,420,224 (Domestic theatres keep a minimum of 20% of all receipts)
-$7,400,000 (Insurance Premiums; Industry average of 4% of the production budget)
-$195,000,000 (Ford & The Beards)
___________________
-$38,901,648
+$117,239,631 (Home Video sales)
___________________
+$78,337,983 (Approximate profit to Paramount)
I’ve used the conservative estimate where available. For example, I have it on good authority that international theatres keep something closer to 60% of all receipts, and domestic theatres snatch 50% after the first two weeks. Or, IMAX prints cost approximately $30-grand to print; standard prints, $2-grand*. These numbers also don’t account for fluctuations in the global currency rates or include the distribution fees and insurance on the actual prints Paramount sends to theatres.
* - Printing a digital copy costs about a hundred and fifty bucks.
These numbers also don’t include global broadcast rights or licensing agreements, but I’ve also left out Paramount’s tax liability. They probably come close to negating each other, and why I’ve been comfortable with the ~$100-million to Paramount I’ve estimated elsewhere. As you can see, home video puts Kingdom of the Crystal Skull into the black. In fact, it’s the only thing that’s going to be a net boon to Paramount over the life of the series. If and when Disney does something with Indiana Jones, Paramount will probably release a 4K edition of the Complete Adventures. Now, despite the dubious increase in visual fidelity on a 30-year old film when compared to standard Blu-ray resolution, any and all sales go right to Paramount's bottom line except for a few payouts to middlemen and whatnot. Hence the importance of creating a brand you can milk for years through spinoffs, licensing agreements, and whatnot. The lifetime aggregate is why, say, Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life can under perform at the box office and still make a profit.
Two problems stick out for Disney: 1.) They don't control the back catalog. 2.) We have passed the peak of home video sales. It's still the second most valuable window after theatrical release, but with the death of traditional video rentals there aren't many places left that'll shell out ~$90/copy.
There is a bright spot, however.
A few terms:
Domestic Theatres: The United States, Canada, Puerto Rico, & Guam
International Theatres: Everywhere else
Box Office: Total amount of ticket sales done at the, well, box office
P & A: Prints & Advertising
One final important number I haven't spoke much about: -59.3%. More later.
Last edited:
The convenience of being unable to cite sources for many of these numbers (as is expected, because we just can't know) makes your post little more than an exercise in speculation. Which would be fine, if you didn't have such an attitude problem. Also, do broadcast rights factor in at all? The series, including Kingdom, still rates reliably when it airs on television. There exists a category between red hot and not having a pulse.
Here's the thing. You've devoted a wall(s) of text to demonstrating how even a series whose last installment pulled in close to $800 million globally and was the second biggest film of its year is not necessarily a safe investment. Well, congratulations, you've succeeded in proving that any glass can be perceived as half empty, if only you're stubborn enough.
I'm not trying to dismiss your overall point, really, which seems to be that people will juke the numbers and simplify the realities in ways that compliment their bias, most relevantly the bias of wanting to see a film series they love continue.
But does any of this matter? Disney purchased Paramount's distribution rights. That's way more of a smoking gun than any of this synthetic arithmetic as far as Disney's perception of the property's value.
You are correct that this only indicates Disney wants to do something. You are correct that this hardly guarantees a Harrison Ford Indiana Jones 5, and you are also correct that there are many factors working against that prospect. But financial issues are not going to be what torpedoes it, if you want to place bets. Ford is vocally interested, which is enough to make Disney, who wants his goodwill for Star Wars, entertain the notion. They are, or once did, actively looking into the possibility of making that work. Isn't that kind of the end of the argument, if the argument is that Disney could rationalize a greenlight? I confess I may be completely lost about what we're truly trying to convey with this thread, because it seems to have fluctuated a lot.
Let's be real. This is going to fall apart because they won't get the script to everyone's satisfaction in time, or they couldn't get certain people focused quickly enough. The rapidly closing window is what should be suffocating hope. Because if the project was considered a non-starter from a numbers standpoint, you'd think Disney wouldn't even be bothering with the process they seem to have initiated.
Also, you're not looking at this selfishly enough: to make the fans' wish come to pass, Disney doesn't necessarily have to see the property as particularly ripe for long-term milking beyond what it's already demonstrated. They need only be convinced that making one more with Harry is justifiable, and there's frankly as much evidence (not proof - when is there ever) of that as there is for many of the sequels that get generated year after year. If Indiana Jones 5 is released and tanks miserably, it's no skin off my nose, because there's not going to be more live action Harrison Ford Indy movies anyhow. I'm personally more optimistic (or maybe sad) about how much Disney could capitalize on Indy in the future with reboots and television projects and merchandising, but even all that aside, consider the timing of the purchase.
Here's the thing. You've devoted a wall(s) of text to demonstrating how even a series whose last installment pulled in close to $800 million globally and was the second biggest film of its year is not necessarily a safe investment. Well, congratulations, you've succeeded in proving that any glass can be perceived as half empty, if only you're stubborn enough.
I'm not trying to dismiss your overall point, really, which seems to be that people will juke the numbers and simplify the realities in ways that compliment their bias, most relevantly the bias of wanting to see a film series they love continue.
But does any of this matter? Disney purchased Paramount's distribution rights. That's way more of a smoking gun than any of this synthetic arithmetic as far as Disney's perception of the property's value.
You are correct that this only indicates Disney wants to do something. You are correct that this hardly guarantees a Harrison Ford Indiana Jones 5, and you are also correct that there are many factors working against that prospect. But financial issues are not going to be what torpedoes it, if you want to place bets. Ford is vocally interested, which is enough to make Disney, who wants his goodwill for Star Wars, entertain the notion. They are, or once did, actively looking into the possibility of making that work. Isn't that kind of the end of the argument, if the argument is that Disney could rationalize a greenlight? I confess I may be completely lost about what we're truly trying to convey with this thread, because it seems to have fluctuated a lot.
Let's be real. This is going to fall apart because they won't get the script to everyone's satisfaction in time, or they couldn't get certain people focused quickly enough. The rapidly closing window is what should be suffocating hope. Because if the project was considered a non-starter from a numbers standpoint, you'd think Disney wouldn't even be bothering with the process they seem to have initiated.
Also, you're not looking at this selfishly enough: to make the fans' wish come to pass, Disney doesn't necessarily have to see the property as particularly ripe for long-term milking beyond what it's already demonstrated. They need only be convinced that making one more with Harry is justifiable, and there's frankly as much evidence (not proof - when is there ever) of that as there is for many of the sequels that get generated year after year. If Indiana Jones 5 is released and tanks miserably, it's no skin off my nose, because there's not going to be more live action Harrison Ford Indy movies anyhow. I'm personally more optimistic (or maybe sad) about how much Disney could capitalize on Indy in the future with reboots and television projects and merchandising, but even all that aside, consider the timing of the purchase.
It's been odd watching the summer tentpoles stumble towards $200M domestically. If Transformers or Train Your Dragon doesn't break away, there will be some soul searching. Sure, Marvel is cleaning up internationally and probably selling heaps of toys. Even if superhero movies become box office poison they'll keep arriving to preserve the respective film rights. But maybe more viewers are learning these story arcs arrive on a strict timetable ready or not and will never resolve.
Which is why I think a last chapter (or two) with Ford in the 60's would succeed, especially with the newly lowered bar. Origin stories do fine, but final installments are so popular a double dip is expected. Divergent 4: Allegiant 2 in 2017 for instance. Very few are offering closure. Even JK Rowling is off writing Potterverse screenplays. Endings are so rare it's hard to gauge how big they might be.
Which is why I think a last chapter (or two) with Ford in the 60's would succeed, especially with the newly lowered bar. Origin stories do fine, but final installments are so popular a double dip is expected. Divergent 4: Allegiant 2 in 2017 for instance. Very few are offering closure. Even JK Rowling is off writing Potterverse screenplays. Endings are so rare it's hard to gauge how big they might be.
IndyForever
Active member
Indiana Jones 5 with Harrison starring & Spielberg/Lucas attached in their traditional roles is almost a lock for $1b. It only needs to match KOTCS quality wise but if it can exceed that due to those 3 going all out then it can make a huge amount of money as the international box office has expanded a lot since 2008 when KOTCS did not even play in China due to Spielberg boycotting the olympics. $786m with no China or Imax & 3D is incredible 
I predict an Indy 5 + 6 filmed back to back both could easily generate $1b each maybe slightly more for 6.
Disney did not pay Paramount $100s millions for the right's (they had to give Paramount $190m for Iron Man 2 + 3 rights. Indy will be similar $$$ wise) then not go all out to have Harrison back with Lucas/Spielberg it makes no sense for a reboot to invest such a large amount of money so I think within a year after EP7 is out of the way (Ford is here in London right now filming as I type this he was pictured yesterday going to the set). We will hear Disney say they are working with writers on a story unless Lucas is currently doing it which I doubt as he was in Canada at the weekend with his wife to watch the Formula 1 race I saw him on TV in the garages but no-one bothered interviewing him at all
I predict an Indy 5 + 6 filmed back to back both could easily generate $1b each maybe slightly more for 6.
Disney did not pay Paramount $100s millions for the right's (they had to give Paramount $190m for Iron Man 2 + 3 rights. Indy will be similar $$$ wise) then not go all out to have Harrison back with Lucas/Spielberg it makes no sense for a reboot to invest such a large amount of money so I think within a year after EP7 is out of the way (Ford is here in London right now filming as I type this he was pictured yesterday going to the set). We will hear Disney say they are working with writers on a story unless Lucas is currently doing it which I doubt as he was in Canada at the weekend with his wife to watch the Formula 1 race I saw him on TV in the garages but no-one bothered interviewing him at all
Stoo
Well-known member
That's assuming that any new Indy movie by Disney will be good…and my prediction is that it/they won't be (just like their version of "The Lone Ranger"). Not everything they touch is golden because Disney does have their fair share of failures.IndyForever said:
This isn't the 1st time where Lucas has attended the Montreal Grand Prix. While I doubt he is actively working on a story, I don't see the connection between Lucas being there and him working on Indy 5. The Grand Prix is only 3 days long so how does it relate?IndyForever said:We will hear Disney say they are working with writers on a story unless Lucas is currently doing it which I doubt as he was in Canada at the weekend with his wife to watch the Formula 1 race I saw him on TV in the garages but no-one bothered interviewing him at all
Plus, Georgie was not there to talk about Indiana Jones. He was there because he likes fast cars!
Stoo said:Not everything they touch is golden because Disney does have their fair share of failures.
You leave Mars needs Moms outta this!?
But not fast women:
http://www.theraider.net/films/crusade/gallery/dvdscreenshots/157.jpg
Last edited by a moderator:
Only 18 movies have made $1B, but a fan can dream. However, they include (by my count) 6 less deserving supposedly final installments.IndyForever said:
Also, in that second Cracked Marvel article I linked:
So I'm sure Disney's contemplating whether Spielberg would add $50M - $75M to the total and make himself worthwhile. Or if giving Lucas a story credit and Spielberg a producer credit and having them visit sets and premieres would keep fans pacified. It would probably feel about the same to the average moviegoer. I doubt Ford would say no to such an arrangement and $50M+.
IndyForever
Active member
Yes but a final Indiana Jones would generate a lot of global interest outside US is where the real money is nowadays. KOTCS topped The Dark Knight in 2008 that was excluding China, 3D & Imax $$$ so global appeal is still high. Now global box office is much bigger Indy 5 could easily wip past $1b.Moedred said:
I think its pretty much a lock that Harrison would not be involved unless Spielberg/Lucas are so it does not really matter how much money Disney offer Harrison he already has $200m according to Forbes so no amount of money will bring him back without the other 2 collaborators.
Le Saboteur
Active member
Moedred said:
Marvel cleaned up domestically too (as we now know). With Guardians of the Galaxy and The Winter Soldier sitting in the top two spots, they'll (almost) definitely remain in the Top 5 highest grossing films of the year. A quick look at the remaining release schedule would suggest that Mockingjay Part the First and the exercise in self-indulgence that is The Hobbit: Battle of Five Armies could unseat Star-Lord & Co., but that's really about it.*
* - Exodus: Gods & Kings and Night at the Museum 3 are outliers, but I suspect that latter suffers from a fair amount of franchise fatigue. And try as I might I can't even get excited about Exodus.
Moedred said:
Not of her own volition. Sure, she's worth a cool billion bucks thanks to the Potter exploits, but she was wooed hard by Kevin Tsujihara, Warner Bros. new CEO. And why wouldn't he? The combined global box office of the eight Potter films and the Batman hokum sits at $11.8-billion.
I receive a lot of varied reading material in conjunction with my-day-to-day activities; some of it's interesting, but a lot of it us dreadfully boring. An example of that boring element would be The Licensing Letter, an independent monthly newsletter that tracks, identifies, and analyzes trends in the retail licensing market. In the most recent issue, however, there was a lot of talk about the arms race between Marvel & D.C. and heavy financial stakes behind it: there's lots of money to be made.
I mentioned earlier in this thread that Spider-Man accounted for ~$700-million in revenue last year alone. Well, I was off a little bit. It looks like Your Friendly Neighborhood Wall Crawler did a very, very brisk $1.3-billion in revenue!
Unfortunately, I can't link to the chart directly, but The Hollywood Reporter has been kind enough to share their own.
With Disney holding about 50% of the market share -- and ~$41-billion in annual sales -- that's putting an estimated $500-million in pure profit towards Disney's bottom line.
One has to sympathize with the creators of "new" Spider-Man feature films. Fans never want to see the character settle down or turn thirty. He can't take a break from Manhattan and swing through the forest because Planet of the Apes is doing that. He can't swing from skyscrapers of the world because Mission Impossible is doing that (for reals without a digital jumping bean). He's boxed in. But if it ain't broke...
Reconsidering Spielberg's directing fee: if Mike Moore directed the truck chase in Raiders, after other second unit work I'm guessing Spielberg directed about 85% of Raiders. What if he directed 51% of Indy 5 at a reduced rate for Disney and still had his name on it? He could send second unit directors to locations overseas (since he didn't want to travel very far last time) and check in digitally. The emotive turning points he's interested in usually occur on set anyway.
Any suggestions what to rename this thread of posts before and after the Disney/Paramount participation deal? 'Budgeting Indy 5'? Something cumbersome and wonky... Le Sab?
Reconsidering Spielberg's directing fee: if Mike Moore directed the truck chase in Raiders, after other second unit work I'm guessing Spielberg directed about 85% of Raiders. What if he directed 51% of Indy 5 at a reduced rate for Disney and still had his name on it? He could send second unit directors to locations overseas (since he didn't want to travel very far last time) and check in digitally. The emotive turning points he's interested in usually occur on set anyway.
Any suggestions what to rename this thread of posts before and after the Disney/Paramount participation deal? 'Budgeting Indy 5'? Something cumbersome and wonky... Le Sab?
Lance Quazar
Well-known member
Moedred said:
No movie director living or dead would ever do such a thing.
You misunderstand the directorial ego and the all-pervasive "auteur" theory. The director is considered the single driving, creative force behind a movie and no one, even an aging director with better things to do, would ever consider relinquishing creative control and "sharing" credit with another director.
It would never happen. The DGA itself frowns on even the very idea of "directing teams" and rarely permits two directors to share credit on a film.
This notion is 100% impossible.
What would happen instead would be Steven taking an executive producer credit and leaving the directing chores in the hands of another.
Lance Quazar said:
Is Cosmatos' Tombstone the anomaly here? (in all seriousness)...I know that film had special circumstances, though.
Lance Quazar
Well-known member
Pale Horse said:
It's not that it never happens. There certainly have been some directing teams, it's just something the DGA doesn't like and actively resists. (They tend to be cool with brothers as a team.)
And certainly directors have been replaced, sometimes mid-stream due to health or other issues. The Henry Ford classic "Mr. Roberts", for instance.
However, no director worth his salt - let alone a visionary legend like Spielberg - would ever set out to direct "half" a movie and hand over half of the work to someone else.
