Hollywood legendary director

Some people may wonder why many Hollywood film manufacturers, after entering the new millennium, love high-investment works so much.

Almost every year, a large number of projects with an investment cost of more than 100 million or even 200 million are filmed. How many superstars are invited to join?

Don't they know that high investment is high risk?Are you afraid of failure?

They certainly know that even the top executives of the companies who have stepped down because of poor projects do not know how many, but why continue to implement this type of investment policy.

Isn’t it safer to use a small to expand?For example, "Smart: Ghost Record" and "Blair the Witch".

But if you think about it carefully, you will find that there are many such works, or are there many works that make big profits by investing in blockbuster films?

Probability and risk-reward ratio may give you the answer.

Isn’t it because the above-mentioned works are so famous that they are even used as case studies by major film companies?

This is not true for blockbuster films, which will be successful every year.

Besides, you certainly can’t imagine that, in fact, films with an investment cost of between 100 million and 150 million are the most insurable projects. They are more likely to generate more than twice the profit than movies with other levels of cost. Those who exceed this range, whether it is higher or lower, will bear some risk of loss or unsatisfactory returns.

In other words, those low-cost and small-produced movies are not necessarily risky. Even if they have been profitable, the income of a normal blockbuster movie can match the income of your five or six small productions, so the market may not be there. How to calculate the risk of accepting failure?

Anyway, as long as it is filming, there will be investment risks.

Converting to big data can be regarded as a probability question, so why not choose a way that reduces the ratio of risk to return on investment to the minimum.

This is why the era of blockbuster movies will come.

Take "Bad Guy" as an example. A huge investment of US$100 million, plus a publicity fee of US$60 million, has also achieved very good market results.

The final box office in North America was 335.2 million US dollars. In the global market, some places have not yet been drawn. The total so far is 688.23 million US dollars, and it is still struggling to advance towards the 700 million mark.

But this box office data is enough to make any film company moved-even more so for Europa Pictures, this project is already the best result since the company was founded.

And such a blockbuster will be staged every year.

"007: Die Another Day", "The Matrix 2: Reloading" and even "Finding Nemo", which is still in theaters, have achieved market returns that meet their worth.

The first two may not be as stunning as "Bad Guy".After all, it's a series of movies, which is supported by fans.

But the latter is even more prominent. It has only been released for more than half a month, and it has already received 600 million in the global market. I believe that 700 million is not a problem at all, and even 800 million may not be able to stop it.

Let's talk about rewards.

Lehmann personally participated in the production of "Bad Guy" with a split infrared and fixed salary. As for Mann Studio, it purely took part of the investment share.

The three parties jointly assumed the huge risks of production and correspondingly won huge market benefits.

Just such a work will bring an estimated income of 60 million U.S. dollars to Mann Studio-of course, this data must also be deducted from taxes and various taxes.

Although it has not been calculated in detail, it will not be less than 50 million.This is just a studio, and Lehman can earn about 10 million yuan.

After all theaters around the world are released, the major theaters will pay dividends to Europa Pictures, and then the final three accounts can be calculated. Then after deducting the original 15 million invested, the net profit income will be 3,000 More than 5 million US dollars.

Very profitable, isn't it?And he still took the least part, think about Paramount and Europa, these two are the real big players.

The latter is still a long-term meal ticket. Even if the accounts are divided, the offline market will continue to bring benefits. Of course, it is not comparable to the current one, but at least the victory is not stable. Disney's annual company report is so good-looking. , Is inseparable from the huge film library.The "Snow White" filmed in 198 years ago is still making money up to now.

And the return of this movie is higher than that of "Buried Alive". After all, the cost of "Buried Alive" is only a few hundred thousand, but it made tens of millions. But looking at the actual situation, the two are incomparable.

As long as a blockbuster film is successful, it is true that several small-produced films may not be comparable.

Since they are all taking risks, why not take more and earn more?

High investment, high risk and high return.

Low investment, high risk, not necessarily high return.

It's you, how do you choose?

This is also the reason why Paramount Pictures was very upset that Tom Cruise took such a high share in the "Mission Impossible" series, but had to pinch his nose to cooperate. It was also the reason why Europa Pictures released part of the revenue to Lehman. , Only to continue to maintain the premise of cooperation.

Interest is the similarity between the two.

As long as it can make money, everything can be negotiated.

If you think about it, a "Bad Guy", although Paramount Pictures and Europa Pictures did not fully disclose the internal profit figures, if you just calculate it a little, at least they have harvested a net profit of more than 100 million-this is still The result of deducting costs and taxes will actually only be higher.

After all, tax avoidance is reasonable, you know, there are too many sorrows in big companies, which is not what an honest person like Lehman can imagine.

More importantly, the added value of such a successful blockbuster is also very impressive.

Even if you put aside the operation of related copyrights, how should the company count the gains from stock price increases because of the good news?

The market value is high, so there can be no harm.There are not too many examples of film companies that have caused stocks to rise or fall due to fluctuations in the movie market.

At least, for this time, the shareholders of Paramount Pictures are happy, and Shirley Lansing is also happy.

Such good results finally blocked those people's mouth.

Perhaps these potential factors are also the reason why film manufacturers insist on investing in large-scale productions. The success of such a project is enough to raise the performance level by a large amount, and the huge returns will also become the company's next powerful production Back.

It is a relatively virtuous cycle.

After painting in North America, Paramount Pictures was happy, but also remembered to organize a celebration party.

Originally, they planned to hold it when it broke 100 million, but Lehman rejected it.

By now, everything has almost settled.Lehman had no excuses to continue to disappoint Paramount.

————