News WB/Paramount merger talks

[thribs]

I imagine they would need a new name if this was to happen. Paramount Brothers?

 

[Quinton]

Looking online, industry analysts projected it needed to get between $340 and $350 million in sales to break even, which is pretty much exactly where it ended up.

Regardless, every one of the major studios seems to have lost money on net at the box office this year, save for unievrsal (which lucked out producing Super Mario Brothers, Oppenheimer, and Five Nights at Freddy's).

Given every notable movie WB made this year other than Barbie (and maybe Wonka...we'll see) ended up outright bombing, they might be willing to take a risk on resurrecting Star Trek for the box office, particularly if they can do cheaper movies in the range of $80-$125 million.

Thanks for the link - I'm surprised (and honestly a little skeptical) that $340-350 was the break-even point, but hey. Duly noted, food for thought!

I imagine they would need a new name if this was to happen. Paramount Brothers?

Sadly, they never go for the funny stuff. It'll probably be impeccably bland. "Warner-Discovery and Paramount Partnership, known in the trades as WBDPP, had its first quarterly earnings meeting today, and..."

 

[The Wormhole]

Beyond underperformed financially - or did you mean qualitatively?

It was Paramount's most successful 2016 film release, financially speaking.

 

[thribs]

Thanks for the link - I'm surprised (and honestly a little skeptical) that $340-350 was the break-even point, but hey. Duly noted, food for thought!



Sadly, they never go for the funny stuff. It'll probably be impeccably bland. "Warner-Discovery and Paramount Partnership, known in the trades as WBDPP, had its first quarterly earnings meeting today, and..."

The symbol could be the Paramount mountain with the WB symbol at the top

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

I imagine they would need a new name if this was to happen. Paramount Brothers?

"The PW"

 

[James Cole]

Disney slightly rebranded 20th Century Fox to 20th Century Studios. I think the mountain would be safe for a while. The main risk would be a drawdown in production... which is a classic indicator of anti-trust law failing to be enforced.

 

[Char Kais]

Looking online, industry analysts projected it needed to get between $340 and $350 million in sales to break even, which is pretty much exactly where it ended up.

Regardless, every one of the major studios seems to have lost money on net at the box office this year, save for unievrsal (which lucked out producing Super Mario Brothers, Oppenheimer, and Five Nights at Freddy's).

Given every notable movie WB made this year other than Barbie (and maybe Wonka...we'll see) ended up outright bombing, they might be willing to take a risk on resurrecting Star Trek for the box office, particularly if they can do cheaper movies in the range of $80-$125 million.

How is a movie with a budget of $185 million supposed to break even at $350 million? Half of the box office goes to the cinemas.
What about the marketing budget? How is that adding up?

https://screenrant.com/fast-x-box-office-breakdown-success-flop/

The general rule of thumb is that movies need to make 2.5 times their budgets to turn a profit, as marketing costs are typically equal to production budgets, and then movie theaters get a cut of ticket sale

https://movieweb.com/why-are-movie-budgets-so-high/

The typical break-even point is around 2.5x the budget of the movie

 

[F. King Daniel]

I seem to recall articles saying Beyond would make a profit when it released on DVD/Bluray.

Hollywood accounting is deeply cursed, there's no golden formula set in stone. That they didn't make another one clearly says it didn't do as well as they hoped. That they kept almost making one rather than flat-out ending it (see: Nemesis) says it can't have been a complete disaster.

 

[drt]

Hollywood accounting is deeply cursed, there's no golden formula set in stone.

Plus, people use things that may have been true 25 years ago, but probably aren’t today. For instance, releases are much more front loaded now, so the theaters don’t make as much early, so the concessions stand is their profit center. Also, foreign box office used to be an afterthought, there’s no way that’s still the case, so I don’t think the “25% in China” applies any longer for a blockbuster release.

 

[Char Kais]

I don’t think the “25% in China” applies any longer for a blockbuster release.

It still does.

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/12-425-China-Trade-Films-for-theatrical-release.pdf
https://i.imgur.com/l2qcC3I.png
https://i.imgur.com/OVh4VdM.png

 

[NCC-73515]

First thought: Someone forgot to put the second S

 

[Noname Given]

Even if it happens it'll be at least two years before it actually goes through/finalizes; and the one current Trek series I currently really enjoy will either have finished it run, or be in it's final season.

So yeah, not all that concerned one way or the other.

 

[Ssosmcin]

The absolute worst case scenario is no more new Star Trek content.

After literally multiple hundreds of hours of Star Trek to watch, I'm fine. It's not like anyone's coming to my house confiscate my DVDs and blu rays. The concept is based off a failed 3 season show from over 50 years ago. We're lucky we got what we have. It's gotta end sometime.

But since Star Trek is proving to be a pretty steady source of revenue, I'm not concerned either way. Paramount has changed hands before. I'm less concerned over who owns the studio than I am over who is in creative control.

 

[fireproof78]

After literally multiple hundreds of hours of Star Trek to watch, I'm fine. It's not like anyone's coming to my house confiscate my DVDs and blu rays. The concept is based off a failed 3 season show from over 50 years ago. We're lucky we got what we have. It's gotta end sometime.

Exactly.

The hand wringing is entertaining, makes for good clickable comments, and that's about it.

Are people going to stop discussing TOS, et. al. because of this merger? Really?

 

[johnjm22]

Change can only be a good thing at this point for Star Trek.

I'm pretty skeptical this merger actually happens. Both companies are loaded up with debt. Zaslav has been focused on getting WBD's financial house in order. A debt fueled acquisition at this point would seem to be counter productive.

 

[johnjm22]

Beyond wasn't a huge financial bomb or anything, but it almost certainly didn't make money.

Deadline reported that it lost about 50M after "all ancillaries counted".

 

[JoseNoodles]

Change can only be a good thing at this point for Star Trek.

I'm pretty skeptical this merger actually happens. Both companies are loaded up with debt. Zaslav has been focused on getting WBD's financial house in order. A debt fueled acquisition at this point would seem to be counter productive.

That's my question: Why would WB buy Paramount (and their debt) wholesale when they are having money issues? That doesn't seem like smart business 101. I can only understand if WB is interested in specific IPs or specific parts of the company (like TV stations), and not the whole company.

 

[Skywalker]

Even if this merger goes through and production on new series comes to an end shortly after, it'll come back around sooner or later.

 

[fireproof78]

Change can only be a good thing at this point for Star Trek.

The change is no Trek produced to save money.

Good?

 

[Ssosmcin]

The change is no Trek produced to save money.

Good?

I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. It's been a good run.