Sony interesting document

I love those Sony documents. It actually provides real financial information on those films.

Surprised that Men in Black 3 lost money, they spent $187 million marketing Karate Kid when the production budget was only $40 million, Amazing Spider-Man 1 and 2 ridiculous production budgets of over $260 million.

It also shows you should keep your budgets low. Most of the most profitable films on the list had either low budgets or reasonable budgets of just over $100 million:

Karate Kid : 40 million
Smurfs: 110 million
Superbad: 20 million
Hotel Transylvania: 85 million
Grown ups: 80 million
Da Vinci Code: 125 million

they spent $187 million marketing Karate Kid when the production budget was only $40 million

That was a clerical error on my part, it was 106 million (for a production budget of 45 million), the cost was low because people were working with nice point I guess (they got 95 million in bonus)

"real" net budget according to the document

Karate Kid : 40 million (45.05)
Smurfs: 110 million (114)
Superbad: 20 million (21.6)
Hotel Transylvania: 85 million (103.95)
Grown ups: 80 million (81.7)
Da Vinci Code: 125 million (177)

Except for Hotel Transylvania and Da Vinci Code they were pretty spot on in their estimate. Da Vinci seem a bit high, maybe the did put some of the book author participation as a production cost ? But then again they have 130 million in participation cost, look like it would be more than enough for Hanks, Howard, Zimmer and Dan Brown.

In that era, sony made 75% of the movie revenue after the theater windows (not including airplane/merchandise, just home entertainment, ppv and tv)

It look like it is less for blockbuster (they have better theater deal and must see in theater affair), while movie that are Will Ferrel type of comedy will do 75% of their revenue post theatre and 100% of the profit.

Some extreme example

Amazing spider-man 1&2 made just 45/46% of their revenue post theater and 73/65% of the profits.

Moneyball (133% of the profit, the theater run costed more than the theater profit) and Looper 70%
Grown ups: 65%
Before midnight: 78%
Inside Jobs: 87% (obviously for documentary, revenue don't come from theater)
Captain philips: 65%

The average sony movie costed more to release, than is theater revenue (i.e. releasing movie in theater was a loosing business, without couting movie producting cost)

Just theater revenue-theater releasing cost, was loosing in average 221k by movie.

Almost no Sony release turned in the black from theatre alone (it is really some non-sense started by BvS, lot of them in that list did it because the production cost was in part paid by someone else):

The list (in order of profit from theater - production cost (not considering any other cost, just production)):

INSIDIOUS: CHAPTER 2 (under 10 million movie, did it by 145k)
FRIENDSHIP! (2.8 million movie, did it by 640l)
PAUL BLART: MALL COP (28 million movie that made 183 million worldwide, turned in the black by only 1.2 million)

COLOMBIANA 1,372.00
Thank God I'm Alive 1,997.00
HEAVEN IS FOR REAL 2,745.00
TOURIST THE 3,650.00
COURAGEOUS 3,825.00
MIDNIGHT IN PARIS 5,563.00
POMPEII 8,000.00
DJANGO UNCHAINED 11,635.00
VOW THE 17,037.00
STALINGRAD 21,468.00
LOOPER 24,891.00
AMERICAN HUSTLE 33,117.00
ZERO DARK THIRTY 44,842.00 (they didn't pay for marketing or the production, so hard to say)
SKYFALL 192,225.00

Even their most profitable movie ever, Spider-Man 3, was 102 million in the red after is theatre release.

Interesting read.

However, let's remember that the merchandise rights were turned over to Disney/Marvel (exclusively) when Disney bought out Marvel (I believe the actual agreement over merchandise was made just over 4 years ago in 2011). Before the Disney acquisition, Sony and Marvel both got a slice of the merchandise (with the scales tipping in Sony's account).

Ever since then, all merchandise revenue headed straight to Disney before the Amazing Spider-Man was even released.

This is one of the main reasons Sony needs Spider-Man to be that $1 billion grosser that it can possibly be.

I don't shut up, I grow up, and when I look at you, I throw up, Aghhh!


However, let's remember that the merchandise rights were turned over to Disney/Marvel (exclusively) when Disney bought out Marvel

That would explain why they do around 15% of what they did in the past

consumer products revenue:
Amazing spider-man 2: 24.79 million
Amazing spider-man : 26,328 million
Spider-man : 157,582 million

The consumer product cost are 0 (to make and market them) for both amazing spider-man, while it was 6 million for Spider-man 3, so they are not actual merchandise (those would all go to Marvel), I wonder what those 25 million are, most movie have almost 0 in consumer product revenue.

Could they be some form of product placement revenue ?

Could they be some form of product placement revenue ?More than likely. After all, SONY has it's only tie-ins with other subsidiaries.



I don't shut up, I grow up, and when I look at you, I throw up, Aghhh!
