Quote:
Originally Posted by DaFace
I could be wrong on this, but I don't think those two percentages are apples-to-apples comparisons. The 5% is described as "first dollar gross," which I would take to mean it's a pure 5% of revenue (and expenses don't matter). The other arrangement Disney was proposing was "50/50 co-financing," which I would interpret as both of them have an equal stake in both the expenses and revenues (so Disney gets 50% of the profits rather than 5% of the gross revenue).
I'm sure that the 50/50 still is massively better for Disney than the 5%, but I don't THINK your assessment that it would be "ten times the profits" is accurate.
EDIT: To further disclaim this, I'm only about 75% sure I'm understanding this correctly, but using figures from Far From Home, the film looks like it made about $1.1 billion worldwide, so Disney's share would be about $55 million. If you remove 3x production budget from that (which I've heard is a rough rule of thumb for total budget including marketing and distribution), that would mean Disney would have gotten like $310 million. So yeah, Disney's proposal is still massively different than the status quo. However, the 5% version says that "If the film tanks, Disney still gets paid," while the 50/50 version says "If the film tanks, Disney takes a hit just like Sony." So it's not COMPLETELY in Disney's favor do move to the latter arrangement.
|
Yeah, if anyone wants to disagree with anything I said there, I'll defer. I know **** all about this apart from some back of the napkin calculations I could find.
But it certainly appears that Disney is asking for a WAY bigger cut. And that it was big enough for Sony to justify taking a pretty big risk in walking away.
That means something.