Upcoming
December 31
January 2
Cargo 200
January 7
Silent Light
January 9
How About You
Yonkers Joe
January 16
Cherry Blossoms
January 21
Of Time and the City
Wait It Out
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull principals George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and Harrison Ford shined their upfront fees and won't see any Indy money until the film grosses $400 million worldwide, according to a 4.21 column by L.A. Times business reporter Claudia Eller.
"If that seems like a no-brainer, consider the norm in Hollywood, where top-tier filmmakers and stars traditionally earn huge upfront fees and get a big cut of ticket sales before a studio recoups its investment," Eller writes.
"The atypical arrangement between the studio and the triumvirate illustrates the new economic realities of the movie business. As production and marketing costs continue to escalate amid flat theater attendance and declining DVD sales, studios are increasingly looking for ways to protect themselves from colossal losses on a single picture."
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on April 21, 2008 at 9:17 AM
comment #1
Jay T.
says ...
This is also a smart way to get all of the budget you want... "Hey, we're not getting paid until it grosses this much, etc. etc."
Posted by Jay T.
at April 21, 2008 9:35 AM
comment #2
FilmTurtle
says ...
Just read the article. Are we dealing with New Math here? (Or did I miss something?) Paramount plus Ford/Koepp/Lucas/Spielberg don't start making money until the flick grosses $400m.
The movie cost (gulp) $185m and Paramount plans to spend $150m to market the film worldwide. That's $335m. Roughly half of a film's gross comes back to the distributor. So if the movie grosses $400m, that's $200m back to Paramount, about $135m short of their investment, and yet they start collecting their distribution fee and paying out to the principals at that point.
Did Golden mean to say the movie has to gross $800m worldwide, in all media, to return $400m back to Paramount? Something looks a little fuzzy, or maybe I need more coffee.
Posted by FilmTurtle
at April 21, 2008 9:57 AM
comment #3
FilmTurtle
says ...
*Claudia Eller, not "Golden". (Reaching for coffee now...)
Posted by FilmTurtle
at April 21, 2008 10:01 AM
comment #4
Filthy Rich
says ...
I would think this would also mean budgets should come down if filmmakers want to get paid - the pay out threshold would be lower the lower they keep the budget.
Posted by Filthy Rich
at April 21, 2008 11:01 AM
comment #5
gradystiles
says ...
Yeah, I believe Eller's actually saying that Paramount's cut of the worldwide gross needs to be $400 mil before they start seeing money--although, that doesn't really make much sense, either, since the budget + marketing figures that are quoted in the article only add up to $335 mil...
Posted by gradystiles
at April 21, 2008 11:10 AM
comment #6
Filmshark
says ...
The article states, "Estimated net revenue to Paramount" which means that it is the amount of revenue received, not the box office gross.
Posted by Filmshark
at April 21, 2008 11:44 AM
comment #7
TheX-man
says ...
Does noone remember that these crystal skulls were the premise for the crappy Phantom movie with Billy Zane? They were trying to find them beofre Treat Williams and the other treasure hunters did for world dominatioin. Super lame for speilberg and lucas.
Posted by TheX-man
at April 21, 2008 12:03 PM
comment #8
insidah
says ...
God, for someone whose deferred salary depends on people actually seeing this movie, Mr. Debbie Downer himself, George Lucas, might want to shut his negative mouth.
Posted by insidah
at April 21, 2008 12:15 PM
comment #9
Movie Watcher
says ...
All three of them have hundreds, if not billions, so they will be getting some cash. Wouldn't it be refreshing if they said "I have enought money. I did this for free." Like that would ever happen. How much money is enough?
Posted by Movie Watcher
at April 21, 2008 2:49 PM
comment #10
Movie Watcher
says ...
spelled the first enough wrong. Just thinking of all the money messed me up!
Posted by Movie Watcher
at April 21, 2008 2:50 PM
comment #11
Jay T.
says ...
Why should they do it for free? Making a movie is a hell of a lot of work -- yeah, gee, I'll just do that and make nothing and let a huge corporation profit. How absurd...
Posted by Jay T.
at April 21, 2008 2:51 PM
comment #12
CinemaPhreek
says ...
Anyone else feel a disconnect over the fact that REVENGE OF THE SHIT (err, sorry, SITH) cost $113M yet this last Indy (or, "How We Paid For Our Grandchildren's Fortunes) is going to hit $185M? Must be some damn big sets they built.
Also have to love the fact that Eller repeats the studio line without naming one study that the average film loses money. Which is true - if you don't count count DVD sales. Speaking of which, I just love how the fact the slow down in growth of DVD sales, which was spin to begin with, has now become "DVDs losing sales".
The Internet can't destroy Hollywood fast enough for me.
Posted by CinemaPhreek
at April 21, 2008 5:11 PM
comment #13
Bob Violence
says ...
Anyone else feel a disconnect over the fact that REVENGE OF THE SHIT (err, sorry, SITH) cost $113M yet this last Indy (or, "How We Paid For Our Grandchildren's Fortunes) is going to hit $185M? Must be some damn big sets they built.
I think the fact that Indy actually has sets (and even, gasp, real-world locations) easily accounts for that.
Posted by Bob Violence
at April 22, 2008 12:43 AM
Post a comment