Not to start profit and loss wars again on these boards, but World War Z is mentioned in the article as having barely made a profit. Wonder what the source for that is. Its reported budget of $190 million is identical to the one reported for STID, but WWZ made $70 million more that STID in worldwide gross ($467 million for STID to $540 million for WWZ).
WWZ made more box office over all, however, they only made $202M Domestically, compared to their budget of $190M. STiD made $228M Domestically.
The International Box Office share for Paramount is much, much smaller than Domestic.
Also, you have to wonder about Productizing, did STiD sell more Product Placement or TV Rights? Was $190M WWZ's true Budget after all was said and done? There were lots of delays, and rewrites and budget overruns, etc.
STiD definitely seems to be making up for any less than desired Box Office by it's stellar Disc sales
When a budget say 190 million, does it already include the 5 millions they got from Nokia and the 5 millions they got from Budweiser, etc...? A third of the film is already paid for by product placement.
Hollywood accounting is a mystery in itself. Don't trust anyone when they say it didn't make a profit. As far as I know, David Prowse has still not seen a penny for his performance in Return of the Jedi, because it didn't make a profit.
1. Yea, absolutely, the published numbers don't give a true Profit/Loss picture. When they say a movie made a profit or a loss, they mean it achieved or didn't achieve a certain profit margin, which isn't the same as making back expenses plus more.
2. No, Product Placements, Selling Toys, TV/streaming Rights, Disc sales, none of that is included in Box Office, that's all gravy, they expect to reach the "required" numbers on Box Office alone
One Day I hope to be the Man my Cat thinks I am
Where are we going? And why are we in this Handbasket?