Oh, it certainly hurts all right. It hurt Paramount that is.
Terminator 6? World War Zzzz? WTF!
Yet both outperformed Beyond by quite a margin in International box office. I understand why both are ahead in the line for sequels.
Future of Paramount includes Star Trek tentpole
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
Yet both outperformed Beyond by quite a margin in International box office. I understand why both are ahead in the line for sequels.
And yet, it's still true. Not only for the reasons I outlined.. Which are correct. But also because of the article on movie revenue which I posted last year which supports me.
You guys.. Nothing. You keep looking at box office from box office MOJO.
Every single article I've read pegs the film at between a 30 and 70 million dollar loss.
Based on it's $343 million box office............................
Of which half (at least) goes to theaters. Plus, they get less of a cut of international receipts. Some estimates have the budget of the film itself ballooning to $200 million. None of this counts marketing costs. Nor does it count ancillary revenue.
Say Paramount walked away with $160 million from the box office, we'll be kind and say they walked away with $140 million in ancillary revenue (TV rights, streaming, disc sales, merchandising (which there was very little of)). That's $300 million in revenue on a $200 million dollar budget. Now, comes marketing. While me and you may buy the non-sense that marketing doesn't count. Paramount spent the money to promote the film, everything from TV spots to drink lids. Modern blockbuster spends somewhere around $200 million in marketing. We'll be kind and tag Beyond at $150 million and the movie has lost $50 million overall.
None of this factors in that they sold the premium channel rights to EPIX, which Paramount owns and means they were just moving numbers around and not bringing any fresh cash flow in on that count.
Yes, they had financing partners. But the thing about financing partners is that they get paid first in all of this. Which means very little revenue actually went into the Paramount coffers.
RAMA, I want your figures to be true, I really really do, but I fear you may be operating from optimism bias. Bill explains the situation well and sounds a little more likely. I guess none of us will know for sure except Paramount.
That's already taken into consideration: $400 million cost, minus the $330-343 million box office, depending on your source, you come out to the $60-70 million reported loss. I've already given a breakdown on revenue elsewhere and depending on the Chinese merchandising deal (which only counted the deal and not sales) it's revenue is in the $480-520 million range. I also reported recently that digital media and streaming is now 1/3rd higher in revenue than physical disc sales. Although there are no figures currently, that's possibly likely for Beyond as well. There is actually more merchandising and licensing going on after it's bluray release than there was when it came out, and although those will only add a few million to the total, it's a healthy property for Paramount. An avg $100 million+ blockbuster makes $200 million on avg 2 years after it's release and continues making money thereafter (as posted in the graphs last year), and Beyond will be no different.
Exactly. Usually a movie that is going to make a $200 million dollar profit, will have the sequel in production almost immediately.
Gross
is not proft 
Head hurts now 
Seriously, films typically have to make double at a minimum to stand any chance of breaking even/profitable return. Paramount and it's partners did not recieve $343 million in ticket sales (the cinema chains get some of that money for a start) but they did spend $185 million on making the movie and that does not include marketing either. They can continue to recap money in the future because a product like Star Trek has alot of legs but there is no evidence to suggest they have met this threshold yet or reached a profit level they deem acceptable. Hell even the gross taken from Blu Ray & Digital sales is cut into by the need for more marketing & distribution by Paramount.
I stopped right here. Paramount only receives roughly $160 million (if that) of that $343 million.
Firstly, it's about $100 million...and nope, for all the reasons mentioned in my post about the delay. Another reason for the delay is the additional cash they wanted from China as reported in the news story link we've been copying and pasting.
Also, as I've mentioned and has been conveniently ignored, is that I have said even that profit is disappointing to Paramount, as we all expected it to make $500 million in BO alone. As we have seen though, that alone doesn't mark a success or failure.
RAMA
Like I said, that's already taken into consideration in the cost.
Um, you misread something, because no one said it was...
RAMA
RAMA
Gross
Seriously, films typically have to make double at a minimum to stand any chance of breaking even/profitable return. Paramount and it's partners did not recieve $343 million in ticket sales (the cinema chains get some of that money for a start) but they did spend $185 million on making the movie and that does not include marketing either. They can continue to recap money in the future because a product like Star Trek has alot of legs but there is no evidence they have met this threshold yet and if they have, to a level of profit they seem to find acceptable. Hell even the gross taken from Blu Ray & Digital sales is cut into by the need for more marketing & distribution by Paramount.
No it isn't. From your own post you subtract $343 million from $400 million to get a $60 million dollar loss on the theatrical run. The loss is more like $240 million.
Paramount doesn't get the $343 million, they get $160, maybe $170 million. A loss on the theatrical run of $230-$240 million.
Sorry are you saying Beyond loss $240 million?
I don't think it turned a profit yet (I think it will in the end but years of work for a small profit is very disappointing) but I don't think they loss anywhere near that.
Excluding marketing costs I would guess $15-30 million deficit at the BO for paramount so the marketing costs makes that even worse. Home Rental/Purchases sales probably haven't plugged the gap yet especially as they incure their own costs which add to the budget.
It's counted in the cost, because it's money owed to various parties. That's the reason they came up with the $50-70 million dollar loss figure..it's already counted.
RAMA
Similar threads
- Locked
