DreamWorks studio sold

I don't get it. They were burning through cash way faster than they were making it, hit an $800 million debt hole, and this was basically their only lifeline. Since they were tightest with Paramount anyway, it kind of makes sense that Paramount would be the one to swoop in. But seriously, if guys like Spielberg, Katzenberg, and Geffen—who are supposed to be the ultimate Hollywood insiders—can't run a semi-successful studio, then who can?? I’ve always dreamed of someone handing me like $10 billion 😁 just so I could build my own media empire from the ground up, but if the competition is so brutal that even a DreamWorks can't make it, what's even the point? Is making profitable movies really that damn hard?? Looking at the home video revenue numbers, you'd have to be a total moron to let a movie lose money. And no matter how much you respect Spielberg, he definitely isn't a moron.

It was honestly pretty much expected.
I’m sitting here torn between laughing and crying when I think back to those massive ambitions they had right out of the gate—you know, back during the early PlayVista days and all that—and how they slowly had to scale everything back until they just ended up being another run-of-the-mill film studio.
Their one stroke of luck was when Walt Disney Animation Studios went public on the stock market, but even that didn't last very long. The SEC ended up poking around their books once they realized they were essentially window-dressing their financial statements to look better than they actually were.

Spielberg definitely learned his lesson: there is a huge difference between being a brilliant director and actually knowing how to run a major studio.

Richard Hernandez13 said:I guess Spielberg learned his lesson... there's a big difference between being a great director and actually being a successful studio boss.

Yeah, I mean, it’s true—if someone like Lucas had actually jumped on board for that whole adventure, they probably would've been printing money left and right.

I honestly don't see Lucas getting down for those kinds of wild adventures. He already went through his own version of hell dealing with Coppola and those whole hippie vibes over at Zoetrope.
That’s probably why he’s turned out to be such an eccentric loner today.

They just weren't pumping out enough movies...
Even if every single release turned a profit without breaking a sweat—with even their average flicks pulling in massive amounts of cash—it still wasn't enough. You can't sustain that kind of momentum with such low volume, no matter how high the quality is...

The Island was honestly just a bit much for me.

The Island might have been the catalyst, but I'm not sure if it was the actual cause. Honestly, I think at the end of the day, home video sales and TV rights could save this movie. Budget was 126 mil, throw in another 40 mil for marketing and distribution... and worldwide box office hit 160 mil (so that's about 80 mil going straight to DreamWorks). Usually, the home video market pulls in at least as much as the theaters. And isn't it crazy how nowadays you make double or triple on video compared to the big screen? It's almost certain that long-term, the film will break even, even if it doesn't make a massive profit.

Two things just don't add up to me. Why didn't they take the Shrek money to help out the live-action division?? Instead, it’s the exact opposite—Walt Disney Animation Studios is its own separate entity, they weren't sold off and they're still doing their own thing.

And the other thing... how did they not have their own studio lot????? I remember that PlayVista plan from back in the day, that never happened... but I still figured they would've built some soundstages or a proper studio lot. Now I find out they didn't. They were constantly paying other people (supposedly spending most of their time over at Universal Studios) just to use their soundstages.

Hey, just a heads-up—when you're crunching the numbers on revenue and expenses, don't forget to account for distributors, taxes, and all those little extra costs.

Disney Animation has officially gone public. If I’m remembering correctly, that means they’ve transitioned into a publicly traded corporation, which implies that if you pick up enough shares, you actually get a say in how the company is run.

Plus, through this specific deal, Paramount Pictures has secured the rights to distribute Disney Animationist films both here in the States and internationally (though they'll be sharing that space with Universal Pictures, who already had those rights locked in).

Hey man, is there any way I can get ahold of you personally right now, since private messages seem to be totally broken?

Richard Hernandez13 said:The Island I mean, I guess it was just a bit too much, honestly. Maybe a little overkill.

It’s kind of funny, I guess... how that one specific thing was actually supposed to be the thing that saved everything. 😁 😁

I mean, like what Grapefruit said, they just weren't putting enough movies out there. I guess the rule of thumb is more about having that one massive blockbuster that covers all the costs of the bigger flops... and then those movies that just break even or make a few extra million over their budget? Those are the ones that actually bring in the profit, I suppose.

Richard Hernandez13 said:Man, when you're crunching the numbers on income and expenses, I guess you shouldn't forget about things like distributors, taxes, and stuff like that... just little details that add up, I suppose.

Yeah, but I mean, we really shouldn't overlook the sheer value of the franchise itself. I'm pretty sure Shrek probably pulled in way more money from stuff like toys, video games, throw pillows, t-shirts, and all that other random junk than it ever did at the actual box office. I guess that's just how it works sometimes.

That’s why I keep saying they really needed someone like George Lucas in their corner—someone with that kind of seasoned experience who could have turned all of this into a total gold mine. But, I guess like you mentioned, he basically had to learn from his own mistakes the hard way, which is probably the best way to do it, I suppose. Honestly, who even needs a big studio anymore? You can just fund a movie with your own cash and then go find some sucker to handle the distribution. 😁 😁

Basically everything except taxes should be baked into that $80 million box office number. I figure the DVD and TV licensing will easily cover the rest. But if anyone has a better breakdown of the costs vs. revenue—maybe using an example like some indie hit or whatever—please drop it here. (And let’s leave out toy tie-ins and stuff, since that doesn't apply to every flick)

The real giveaway is how the animation department split off ages ago. It's pretty obvious they already assumed the live-action side was going under and didn't want to throw good money after bad...

As for them not churning out enough movies, I'm not so sure about that. I mean, other studios haven't been pumping out massive amounts either, yet they're still standing. I'm talking about outfits like Paramount, Universal, or New Line...

Cash flow has been their nightmare from day one. They just didn't have the capital to build out a full-scale studio with all the infrastructure you need. I heard a rumor that Bill Gates promised to fund them for the first six years, but once he hit the half-billion mark, he changed his mind and bailed. You can see the struggle in all those heavy co-productions with other studios. Usually, you don't do that unless it's a tiny indie flick—either they're fighting over who owns the rights and end up splitting production, or they don't actually believe the movie will land and want to hedge their bets by sharing the cost. And come on, nobody's telling me Minority Report or War of the Worlds was a gamble. It was obvious they were gonna print money. Clearly, the reason for those co-productions was just that they lacked the cash to pull it off solo.

If you wanna reach Kozza, hit me up at catcher_in_the_sky@yahoo.com. It's basically my spam folder anyway, so I don't care about posting it publicly like this. 😁

Sure, Steve could have signed a directing deal with DreamWorks, but let's be real—would the big bosses even authorize those kinds of massive director fees? 😉

Just a little something to feed those late-night paranoia cravings of yours:

If everything goes according to plan, Paramount might actually claw back nearly two-thirds of what they shelled out to pick up DreamWorks SKG in the first place. According to a report from The New York Times this Monday, there’s a deal on the table to sell off the DreamWorks library—which includes 59 different titles—to a private equity group led by George Soros. It’s a pretty massive move, especially considering Paramount originally dropped $1.6 billion in cash plus a whole lot of assumed debt just to bring DreamWorks into the fold, but now they're reportedly looking to pull in about $1 billion just for that library.

😁

Karen Diaz32 said:Sure, he could have signed a directing deal with DreamWorks, but would the bosses actually cut him those kinds of massive checks? 😉

👍 👍 👍