D&D Movie/TV D&D 2 is possibility still

[Ferrousbones]

This is what the head of Paramount said on the subject

Incorrect. That was the opinion of the author, not a quote from the CEO. The quote of him begins with "We've got to figure out a way..."

That said, the date of the article is after HAT came to VOD, so clearly the author doesn't think the movie will break even via home theater (it needs to make over $105 million to do so), and while I lean the same way, I prefer that all of us at least avoid mis-attributing statements, and avoid stating things as fact unless we have confirmed data to back them up.

 

[bedir than]

(it needs to make over $105 million to do so),

This isn't true.

Paramount is much lower. They took a vast majority of the box office distribution, and you can see from the delays in streaming that they have the ONLY streaming revenue and most of the VoD revenue.
They only spent 137, counting marketing.
The modern, 1.5 box number would mean they need to make 206. Considering the only rights they didn't control were UK and Canada they got very close to that from Box.

The CEO of a company that already had a writers strike and was about to have an actors strike is going to tell you that every movie lost money, because if he doesn't he'll have to pay more than 10 cent residuals every month.

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

How quick we forget. When Paramount asked Harve Bennett if he could make a sequel to Star Trek: The Motion Picture (which was a honking expensive shoot that only ended up in the black because of nerds who hadn't seen the Big E in fifteen years) for less money, he said that where he came from, they made five movies on that budget.

And the rest is history.

 

[mamba]

I have no idea but I find it funny you're now picking and choosing what parts of what Robbins said to apply to the movie and which not

In am not picking and choosing, I quoted the part that definitely does (plus a bit before that, which I did not attribute to the CEO), and doubt the part that was a generic statement about movies and which at least to me makes no sense to apply to HAT, because math (and because I have no reason to take this literal at all, "“It’s no one’s fault,” says Robbins. “COVID and inflation took the $100 million movies and made them cost $200 million" is an exaggeration to make a point, not accounting).
I am not saying HAT did not cost more, I am refuting that it cost $100M more...

depending on which furthers your viewpoint. He never said the movie was a loss

and I did not say so either, I said that he was not impressed by its performance The quote to me very much shows this

 

[mamba]

Incorrect. That was the opinion of the author, not a quote from the CEO. The quote of him begins with "We've got to figure out a way..."

that quote is the part I was referring to...

 

[Ferrousbones]

This isn't true.

Paramount is much lower. They took a vast majority of the box office distribution, and you can see from the delays in streaming that they have the ONLY streaming revenue and most of the VoD revenue.
They only spent 137, counting marketing.
The modern, 1.5 box number would mean they need to make 206. Considering the only rights they didn't control were UK and Canada they got very close to that from Box.

The CEO of a company that already had a writers strike and was about to have an actors strike is going to tell you that every movie lost money, because if he doesn't he'll have to pay more than 10 cent residuals every month.

I did not say how much it needs to make to cover just the costs to Paramount, I said how much it needs to break even (the movie itself), as in profits minus expenses. The expenses were at least $210 million (production budget plus Paramount marketing), maybe higher, depending on how much Hasbro contributed to marketing.

We know that HAT only made just over $208 million in theaters, and the typically split of revenue is 50%. We also know that 65% in studio favor was considered really excessive, and that was a Disney negotiation. Since there has been no word of HAT getting an unusually good deal for the studios, it is logical to estimate based on 50%. This gives just over $104 million (I round to 105) in revenue to the studios altogether.

This means HAT was about (210 - 105) $105 million in the red after it theatrical run. Thus VOD/streaming needs to generate $105 million to break even. Paramount doesn't need that whole amount, but unless they get dibs on VOD/streaming until they get in the black, they will be in the red until that threshold is reached.

that quote is the part I was referring to...

Then you need to only quote that part when you are claiming what the CEO said.

 

[mamba]

Then you need to only quote that part when you are claiming what the CEO said.

1) no, it was clear what part was a quote and what was not, the sentence before it was context. 2) I had two posts, the second only contains that quote, so even if you missed it the first time, the second should have made that clear

Robbins [Paramount CEO] isn’t abandoning the idea of more “Dungeons & Dragons,” though if there’s a sequel, he says, “We’ve got to figure out a way to make it for less.” is not showing any signs of being impressed

 

[Mistwell]

1) no, it was clear what part was a quote and what was not, the sentence before it was context.

When you repeatedly get the same reaction to your post from multiple people, it's not clear that's what you meant from the post.

 

[Ferrousbones]

1) no, it was clear what part was a quote and what was not, the sentence before it was context.

No, it wasn't. Here is what you said:

This is what the head of Paramount said on the subject “while “Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves” will lose money even though Chris Pine led the ensemble. Robbins isn’t abandoning the idea of more “Dungeons & Dragons,” though if there’s a sequel, he says, “We’ve got to figure out a way to make it for less.””

By saying what you did in red, you are claiming that what follows is all said by the person you are referencing.
Here is the wording of the article:

Even a star’s ability to make audiences swoon isn’t always enough to guarantee that a movie will make money. “Babylon,” an epic about the silent movie era, collapsed at the box office when Paramount released it last December, despite starring Brad Pitt, while “Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves” will lose money even though Chris Pine led the ensemble. Robbins isn’t abandoning the idea of more “Dungeons & Dragons,” though if there’s a sequel, he says, “We’ve got to figure out a way to make it for less.”

Green is everything before your quote, and yellow is the only part of the text about his statements.

 

[bedir than]

I did not say how much it needs to make to cover just the costs to Paramount, I said how much it needs to break even (the movie itself), as in profits minus expenses. The expenses were at least $210 million (production budget plus Paramount marketing), maybe higher, depending on how much Hasbro contributed to marketing.

We know that HAT only made just over $208 million in theaters, and the typically split of revenue is 50%. We also know that 65% in studio favor was considered really excessive, and that was a Disney negotiation. Since there has been no word of HAT getting an unusually good deal for the studios, it is logical to estimate based on 50%. This gives just over $104 million (I round to 105) in revenue to the studios altogether.

This means HAT was about (210 - 105) $105 million in the red after it theatrical run. Thus VOD/streaming needs to generate $105 million to break even. Paramount doesn't need that whole amount, but unless they get dibs on VOD/streaming until they get in the black, they will be in the red until that threshold is reached.

Then you need to only quote that part when you are claiming what the CEO said.

Ignoring that Hasbro may not be in the movie to see profit from Box Office is a significant assumption.
If Hasbro did want to see profit from Box Office they would not have negotiated away distribution rights to 95% of the movie seeing public.