500 million doesn’t seem like all that much really, considering just one blockbuster movie can make that much in profit. So I don’t think this deal will be for that many years going forward.
There's a lot of cost and risk that goes into making that one blockbuster. The revenue we see from weekly theaters sales are not what the movie studios get. And note that I said studios; when was the last time you saw a film that only had one major name attached to its funding? I like Abrams but I also think $500M for Bad Robot won't generate enough profits to make a slam dunk purchase.
Here's an article from 1987…
"So, of the $10 plunked down on one sultry night last August, $5 went into the coffers of the Eastgate Theater, and $1.50 paid Fox's distribution fee. About $1 was applied to prints and advertising. And the remaining $2.50 began the task of paying for Mr. Goldblum, the laboratory in which he met his fate and his horrifying metamorphosis into a hairy insect."
Has Avengers: Endgame even made $500 million in PROFIT (not earnings) for a single studio at this point in its non-video or post theater distribution cycle?
If you're relying on that 25% profit as an accurate estimate then yes absolutely. Worldwide gross is now $2,742,559,257. What's 25% of that? Around $675 million in profit. I don't think boxed/download/streaming versions or platform rights (Netflix or HBO or whoever) are yet in play either. A $B in profit after all expenses doesn't sound out of reason.
500 million doesn’t seem like all that much really, considering just one blockbuster movie can make that much in profit. So I don’t think this deal will be for that many years going forward.
There's a lot of cost and risk that goes into making that one blockbuster. The revenue we see from weekly theaters sales are not what the movie studios get. And note that I said studios; when was the last time you saw a film that only had one major name attached to its funding? I like Abrams but I also think $500M for Bad Robot won't generate enough profits to make a slam dunk purchase.
Here's an article from 1987…
"So, of the $10 plunked down on one sultry night last August, $5 went into the coffers of the Eastgate Theater, and $1.50 paid Fox's distribution fee. About $1 was applied to prints and advertising. And the remaining $2.50 began the task of paying for Mr. Goldblum, the laboratory in which he met his fate and his horrifying metamorphosis into a hairy insect."
Has Avengers: Endgame even made $500 million in PROFIT (not earnings) for a single studio at this point in its non-video or post theater distribution cycle?
If you're relying on that 25% profit as an accurate estimate then yes absolutely. Worldwide gross is now $2,742,559,257. What's 25% of that? Around $675 million in profit. I don't think boxed/download/streaming versions or platform rights (Netflix or HBO or whoever) are yet in play either. A $B in profit after all expenses doesn't sound out of reason.
How did you get 25% net profit for a single studio?
500 million doesn’t seem like all that much really, considering just one blockbuster movie can make that much in profit. So I don’t think this deal will be for that many years going forward.
There's a lot of cost and risk that goes into making that one blockbuster. The revenue we see from weekly theaters sales are not what the movie studios get. And note that I said studios; when was the last time you saw a film that only had one major name attached to its funding? I like Abrams but I also think $500M for Bad Robot won't generate enough profits to make a slam dunk purchase.
Here's an article from 1987…
"So, of the $10 plunked down on one sultry night last August, $5 went into the coffers of the Eastgate Theater, and $1.50 paid Fox's distribution fee. About $1 was applied to prints and advertising. And the remaining $2.50 began the task of paying for Mr. Goldblum, the laboratory in which he met his fate and his horrifying metamorphosis into a hairy insect."
Has Avengers: Endgame even made $500 million in PROFIT (not earnings) for a single studio at this point in its non-video or post theater distribution cycle?
If you're relying on that 25% profit as an accurate estimate then yes absolutely. Worldwide gross is now $2,742,559,257. What's 25% of that? Around $675 million in profit. I don't think boxed/download/streaming versions or platform rights (Netflix or HBO or whoever) are yet in play either. A $B in profit after all expenses doesn't sound out of reason.
How did you get 25% net profit for a single studio?
First I didn't mention "a single studio" nor did you in your initial post AFAICT. Perhaps I was misreading the intent of the "remaining $2.50" tho and it appears I was. Sorry!
The quite old article is claiming there is no profit, which obviously there is: Theaters, and distributors, production studios etc all getting a share of the proceeds and many far exceeding their actual cost of involvement.Profit! In the case of a blockbuster perhaps FAR exceeding the costs. Heck they're calling The Fly a blockbuster and it took in less than 11 Million at the box office? This one is nearing $3Billion.
500 million doesn’t seem like all that much really, considering just one blockbuster movie can make that much in profit. So I don’t think this deal will be for that many years going forward.
There's a lot of cost and risk that goes into making that one blockbuster. The revenue we see from weekly theaters sales are not what the movie studios get. And note that I said studios; when was the last time you saw a film that only had one major name attached to its funding? I like Abrams but I also think $500M for Bad Robot won't generate enough profits to make a slam dunk purchase.
Here's an article from 1987…
"So, of the $10 plunked down on one sultry night last August, $5 went into the coffers of the Eastgate Theater, and $1.50 paid Fox's distribution fee. About $1 was applied to prints and advertising. And the remaining $2.50 began the task of paying for Mr. Goldblum, the laboratory in which he met his fate and his horrifying metamorphosis into a hairy insect."
Has Avengers: Endgame even made $500 million in PROFIT (not earnings) for a single studio at this point in its non-video or post theater distribution cycle?
If you're relying on that 25% profit as an accurate estimate then yes absolutely. Worldwide gross is now $2,742,559,257. What's 25% of that? Around $675 million in profit. I don't think boxed/download/streaming versions or platform rights (Netflix or HBO or whoever) are yet in play either. A $B in profit after all expenses doesn't sound out of reason.
How did you get 25% net profit for a single studio?
First I didn't mention "a single studio" nor did you in your initial post AFAICT. Perhaps I was misreading the intent of the "remaining $2.50" tho and it appears I was. Sorry!
The quite old article is claiming there is no profit, which obviously there is: Theaters, and distributors, production studios etc all getting a share of the proceeds and many far exceeding their actual cost of involvement.Profit! In the case of a blockbuster perhaps FAR exceeding the costs. Heck they're calling The Fly a blockbuster and it took in less than 11 Million at the box office? This one is nearing $3Billion.
1) I sure did. At least three times I referenced the complexity of production with a reference to studios. I've seen Bad Robot on screen many times but it's always sandwiched in-between many other names who all get their hand in the till at various flat and floating rates.
2) There's clearly a lot of profit to be made or these businesses wouldn't exist, but the claim from the OP is that Bad Robot is valuable enough to profit by $500 million from being part of a single blockbuster film. Perhaps that could be true in the future but I've sen no evidence to back that up. Ticket sales are not profit!
Apple is a premium brand, Abrams is a middlebrow schlock merchant, albeit a successful one. Prefer Apple pursue BBC and Masterpiece Theatre talent rather than visual junk food.
Absolutely, Apple should build on the success of the premium strands Planet of the Apps and Carpool Karaoke.
Comments
The quite old article is claiming there is no profit, which obviously there is: Theaters, and distributors, production studios etc all getting a share of the proceeds and many far exceeding their actual cost of involvement.Profit! In the case of a blockbuster perhaps FAR exceeding the costs. Heck they're calling The Fly a blockbuster and it took in less than 11 Million at the box office? This one is nearing $3Billion.
2) There's clearly a lot of profit to be made or these businesses wouldn't exist, but the claim from the OP is that Bad Robot is valuable enough to profit by $500 million from being part of a single blockbuster film. Perhaps that could be true in the future but I've sen no evidence to back that up. Ticket sales are not profit!