UPDATE: Fox’s Film Financing: Troubled Or Not?
WRITETHRU WITH NEW INFO: Paramount is flatly denying any financing crisis detailed in tomorrow‘s Financial Times newspaper. My insiders at the studio are confirming that, yes, Paramount and Deutsche Bank did not make an overall deal for hundreds of millions of dollars as planned to underwrite future movies. But the studio maintains that it walked away from the final negotiation two weeks ago because the terms weren’t acceptable and that, soon after, Deutsche Bank’s film financing arm shuttered. So I’ve got to ask: how much of this is fallout from the current credit crunch, and how much is fallout from the nearly certain loss of DreamWorks by the end of this year? And is this financing critical to the continued smooth operation of the studio and its movie projects?
is insisting that nothing will change about the way it’s doing business because the Deutsch Bank deal went south. “Viacom is zero upset about this,” one source at the studio assures me, “It’s much ado about nothing. All I know is that we’re covered.” That’s because Paramount says individual partners like Spyglass, Level 1, Village Roadshow, and a small reincarnation of its former overall deal, Melrose II, as well as rival studios through co-productions are all helping finance its upcoming slate of films on a one-by-one basis. And the studio says it will continue doing that — financing each pic with an outside partner or as a co-production — until the current credit crunch eases. “We like those deals and economics much better. They’re far stronger for us,” an insider at the studio assures me. “We’re very comfortable as is Viacom with our business plan. We’ve now laid off as much risk as we need to.”
Paramount insiders even tell me that, for now and the immediate future, it will suspend looking for an overall financial partner until the credit crunch is over.
Here’s what happened, according to my sources: Paramount’s COO Frederick Huntsberry, CFO Mark Badagliacca, and SVP of capital management Mark Pinkerton had been negotiating for some time with Deutsche Bank’s film financing arm, newly headed by top media and entertainment bank Laura Fazio who’d been hired away from Dresder Kleinwort a year ago to jumpstart what was considered a lagging division. What was being discussed was an overall deal for 30 films that only financed 25% of each movie and capped at $30M. It was, in the words of one Paramount exec to me, “Just a drop in the bucket.” Also contributing equity and a portion of the mezzazine financing to the Deutsche Bank deal with Paramount was Qualia Capital, the bicoastal media and entertainment investment fund.)
Then, about a month ago, the trio came to Paramount bosses with a status report on the deal. And Brad Grey et al didn’t like it. “It was not strong enough. It gave too much money away if the pics do well and not offset enough of the risk if the pics don’t,” an insider told me. “So we notified them two weeks ago that the deal didn’t make any economic sense and there was no point to this. What we decided was to walk away. And having lost this piece of business, they shut the division down.”
My sources stress that any characterization that the studio “lost” the financing is untrue. Which is why the studio finds the Financial Times story tomorrow misleading. But an outside-the-studio source told me over the weekend that the reason why no financial group is helping Paramount isn’t just the credit crunch — but also because the studio hasn’t built up a good enough movie track record of its own. The Hollywood veteran told me: “Paramount doesn’t have an equity financing deal because it lost the one it was making and has not been able to replace it because the studio’s record is so bad.” After all, if it hadn’t been for DreamWorks, DreamWorks Animation, and now Marvel, and also Steven Spielberg, the Paramount balance sheet over the past 2 1/2 years would be a total disaster area. That is what the Financial Times report certainly hints at when it says:
“The credit crunch has hit home in Hollywood after Paramount Pictures, which has released a string of hit movies this year, was forced to suspend plans for a $450M film financing. The studio has been working with Deutsche Bank on financing that would have provided funds for up to 30 films, including possible blockbusters such as the sequel to Transformers and a new version of Star Trek. However, Deutsche has decided to close its film finance unit and concentrate on other areas. With the Paramount deal proving difficult to close because of a market-wide lack of enthusiasm for the senior debt component of the deal, the financing has effectively been left in limbo.”
I first heard over the weekend this rumor that Paramount was having “financing problems” and that, specifically, it had “lost” its financing. Under normal circumstances, Paramount would have been able to replace Deutsche Bank with another source of financing fairly easily. But Deutsche Bank is only the latest financier to stop underwriting movies and close its film division. (Duetsche Bank let go Laura Fazio, plus others, after making a big fuss out of hiring her a year ago.) So there are less places for the studio to go, especially because of the current credit crunch. These financing deals are crucial not for a studio to survive but so a studio can mitigate its risk. That’s why Fox has its Dune deal, Warner Bros has Legendary, Disney has Kingdom, both Sony and Universal have Relativity, United Artists supposedly has Merrill Lynch funding, and MGM is still looking for its financial partner.
Here are the deals that Paramount currently has in place: Level 1 is helping underwrite Star Trek, Spyglass is aiding G.I. Joe, Transformers II‘s deal is Melrose 2 (which financed the original pic and was given another crack at the sequel), and The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button is a co-production with Warner Bros. “So on all of our biggest movies over the next year we already had a partner,” a Paramount insider tells me.
Of course, the timing of the Financial Times story is uncomfortable for Paramount because the studio bosses are winging to NYC on Thursday for an LRP — long range planning — meeting with parent company Viacom where the studio will present its slate of pics through 2012. But, again, the studio is shaking off the headlines. As one insider put it to me, “Paramount has been around for 100 years. And it will be around for a very long time.”
Sure, the studio has boasted about making $2 billion at the box office worldwide already in 2008. But the breakdown shows that the studio itself isn’t necessarily responsible for that. Yet that’s exactly why DreamWorks was purchased at the end of 2005 — to get Paramount over the worst of its dry spell. And then DreamWorks proceeded to put Paramount at the top of studio box office share in 2006 and 2007 with a string of hits like Disturbia, Transformers, Norbit, etc.
So did DreamWorks Animation, which Paramount is distributing until 2010 and whose Kung Fu Panda is keeping Paramount competitive this summer even though the studio receives only distribution fees. Same story with Marvel’s Iron Man, which gives Paramount box office boasting rights this summer but again only distribution fees. Even Paramount’s fourth in the series, Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull, comes with an asterisk because it’s unclear how much worldwide gross the studio gets to keep after Steven Spielberg and George Lucas receive their massive payouts.
This reality is one reason why DreamWorks took out that clever but also churlish ad in Variety last Thursday congratulating Paramount’s marketing and distribution for $1.6 billion in box office so far this year for Iron Man, Kung Fu Panda, and Indiana Jones 4. The point was to underscore that, without DreamWorks Animation, and Marvel, and Spielberg, Paramount’s take would have been slim pickin’s. And DreamWorks will be leaving soon, with David Geffen and Steven Spielberg out the door as well. DreamWorks Animation will be able to follow a year and a half later.
Of course DreamWorks will be leaving behind such franchises as Transformers, with the sequel just around the corner. But as I’ve reported, Paramount and DreamWorks don’t see eye to eye when it comes to unravelling the two companies, especially what monies Spielberg can pocket according to the terms of his employment deal. Expect a battle royal.
All of the above may explain why there’s uncertainty in the financial markets even beyond the current credit crunch about Paramount right now. But none of that takes into account the real likelihood that the studio has a profitable outlook on the horizon. In addition to Transformers, the studio can restart the Star Trek franchise under J.J. Abrams as well as begin a new franchise with G.I. Joe. All could be blockbusters. Or not. A the FT concluded: “But if the studio fails to revive the deal with another bank it could force Paramount to seek funds from Viacom, the media conglomerate that owns the studio, to produce the titles. This would expose the company to greater financial risk if the films fail to perform as expected.”
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.


Paramount, in fact all of Hollywood, have only themselves to blame for this serious lack of investor confidence.
Investing in movies have always been a gamble, films flop all the time, and investors can understand losing money when the movies lose money. But with Hollywood you can also expect to lose your investment even when the film’s a blockbuster smash.
I mean how many stories have we heard about profit participants having to go to court because the film that studio bragged to the papers about being the “biggest hit of all time” ended up becoming “the biggest money loser of all time” to investors.
Actors, who used to rely on profit participation to make real money, are now demanding massive up front fees, most beyond their box-office appeal, and gross point back-ends that also suck the revenue dry.
This causes costs to go up at a rate not seen since Weimar Germany, and toss in shady bookkeeping practises and you have a recipe for fiscal meltdown.
If Paramount is going to win back the favour of investors, they’re going to need a radical revamp of how they do business, right down to the core.
burn baby burn!
After Paramount’s fiasco with the release of the latest “The Fugitive” tv series dvd, this is fitting payback.
Box office built by Dreamworks: $Billions$
Viacom corporate lawyer fee’s in going after YouTube: $Millions$
Not keeping an eye on the ball: ¢Priceless¢
Dear Nikki,
This is one of the finest pieces of reporting about Paramount I have read in a long time.
Nice job. Very informative. Great details. New characters (Huntsberry. Bagadlicca. Pinkerton.) Not just the usual suspects.
Um, does this mean I just gave you a blow job in the Patrick Goldstein/ Bob Shaye manner of giving blow jobs?
I always think it’s funny when studio’s brag how much money they make,putting out expensive page ads like Paramount did recently.
But when you really look at it it’s all a bunch of bullshit.
Iron Man was a Marvel film first,Paramount only receives a distribution fee.
Indiana Jones made (and still makes)a lot of money(nearly 800 mil worldwide)but will have to give most of it away to Spielberg,Lucas and Ford(I believe they get 80 cent out of every dollar after it made 400 mil)
So that billion dollars they made looks good on paper,but when you bring out the calculator they end up with bread crumbs.
@G.I. Jeff:Who are you to decide who gets to post and who doesn’t.
The only one who can decide who post or not is Nikki not you.
“Paramount insiders even tell me that, for now and the immediate future, it will suspend looking for an overall financial partner until the credit crunch is over.”
Certainly a keenway to run corporate strategy nowadays, no? As if anyone can truly call a bottom to this credit crunch. It’s like someone saying the same thing circa July, 1930.
It’s also a statement eerily similar to what leading national homebuilder Lennar states about how and when to start selling its yet-to-be-completed residential inventory in suburban areas.
[BTW, Lennar will be insolvent soon, so short it, and its sector, while you still can....]
I wouldn’t be surprised to see Redstone dump the studio altogether by 2011. Folks on the lot shouldn’t have been laughing when Cruise/Wagner got the boot, as it was indicative of Viacom being all business when push comes to shove. I.E. NO WAY Viacom will pony up for production funds with advertising dollars shrinking in the credit crunch…
G.I. Joe had better be US led and not the “World Peacekeeper force” they want to change it to.
Oh, and it would be cool if they got Don Johnson back….!
YO JOE!
I ditto my fellow New Jerseyan’s comment. G.I. Joe is supposed to be a U.S. Marine, not some panzy who works for the UN and Kofi Annan.
When I heard about this story this morning on Fox Business,I found it interesting. Interesting in the fact that Deuschabank would pull the studio financing on films. Could this be the beginning of new trend for studios? Has the credit crunch start to hit the studios now? If so which one would be next? Could this pull-out lead to studios closing down financing of films already in the pipeline?
I for one am happy to know that Credit Crunch has hit Hollywood. The lack of funds will reduce the number of productions and that will enhance the quality of productions. Producers will think hard before starting a new movie. Fewer but better stuff, all viewers rejoice!
>>>G.I. Joe is supposed to be a U.S. Marine
Say what? I’m old enough to have had the *original* G.I. Joe doll — ummmm, Action Figure!!! — as a toy as a child in the 1960s. He was ARMY, not Marine. Marine get-up was an *accessory* that had to be bought; a dress Marine uniform. Standard G.I. Joe was just like Sad Sack — an Army grunt.
Wow Chuck! Someone actually watches Fox Biz Channel….is it their superior graphics or their big chested hosts that keep you tuned in? Sure can’t be their credibility…:-)
Maybe if everyone started acting (no pun intended) a bit more reasonable and rational, and a lot less greedy, movies could get made for far less money. First, stop the 10, 15, 20, etc. million dollar paychecks for stars and directors (and why not give any back-end profit participation to a worthy cause like the fight against global warming or helping refugees in foreign countries riddled with genocidal armies?). Then, cut down on the special effects and pyrotechnics (these things are starting to get a little ridiculous). It is simple, really! Reduce the up-front cost of making a movie and it will (a) be easier to finance; and (b) help out all of the hard working lower and middle class people for whom a night out at the movies is a wonderful escape from the difficulties of everyday life.
I think this foreshadows the end of how Hollywood has done business. Playing with other people’s money was assumed to go on forever, and likely this is … if not the end, or even the beginning of the end, at least the end of the beginning (with apologies to Winston Churchill).
There’s too much risk, not enough reward, regulators are asking tougher questions, credit is being ratcheted down by regulators after Indy Mac and fiascoes, consumer spending is down and likely to remain down for years, why bother?
Hollywood has two choices: chase after Saudi/Gulf money and make films pandering to their interests which will of course lose money but keep the power structure intact along with the social system, until their Gulf patrons run out of money or face revolution at home, or fundamentally change the way they do business.
Which means making money on EVERY film, no “prestige” stuff for Oscar-bait but losses, aiming for the broad middle to entertain, at much lower costs including marketing.
I’m sure this is just the beginning of Wall Street under heavy regulator pressure to dump financing of studio projects. I fully expect Hollywood to run to Dubai and places like it for money, films to reflect that etc.
After so many years of making money.. why can’t a company as big as Paramount afford to make its films with its own money, rather than borrowing?
Or do the ridiculous executive bonus’s every year, burn up almost all of their cash?
who cares if furious d posts every article, or not?
if you were out curing cancer, or something, then you wouldn’t be in the entertainment industry reading this meaningless stuff, anyway
Hmmm…
Hollywood has been so out-of-touch with the sentiment and morality of Americans for several years. They have produced more movies that almost “preach” hyper-liberal morality — that they have actually mocked the morality and social views of the movie-going masses.
How many films do Hollywood studios need to produce that are considered anti-American or anti-traditional values? The last few years have been seen as an assault on those values by millions of movie-goers.
Which movies have been performing well? They haven’t been the big name films that preach. They haven’t been the “artistic” films that also preach. The films that have sold well and bring in a good return for investments have been from films that (for the most part) touch the sentiment of the central segment of American society.
Juno was ridiculed and hated by anti-abortion folks. Yet it raked in a fortune. Indiana Jones had so-so reviews…but still raked in a fortune. Iron Man had good reviews for its coming-of-age story of a drunk turned hero who conquers international terrorists. It also made a fortune.
Jarhead, Lions, Brokeback Mountain, etc… — they barely broke even! Even this years MEGA-FLOP, SpeedRacer, probably owes its failure to the transvestite lifestyle of one of its directors and the adult themes integrated into a “kids” film (did I see a child cuss, shoot the bird after having the camera zoom into a woman’s butt?).
There is a lot to be said about an industry that militantly attacks THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST but then watches that film rake in nearly $400M domestically…and then loudly embrace BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN that only broke even because of the insignificant pay accepted by the actors and director.
What should Hollywood do? They need to get back to their roots and produce films that appeal to the largest demographics. Anti-war, anti-conservative, and anti-religious films will only alienate that segment of the population that can’t seem to justify paying $10 per ticket to watch a film that PREACHES something (morally, religiously, environmentally) that is opposed to their own cultural norms.
This is not to say that Hollywood should not produce artistic films. Rather, they can better examine which films for which they should invest the greatest portions of money. There are no “sure hits” in Hollywood. However, “preachy” films are the LEAST likely to make a good return for the investment. Even with big name stars (like Clooney, Redford, Cruise, etc…), a film will suffer if its stars are too “preachy.” Remember MI:3? It was the BEST of the series — but owes its lackluster box office take to a single interview by the Today Show’s Matt Lauer. Tom Cruise took the bait and “preached” his Scientology spill. America doesn’t want to hear it!
Let’s make some movies that aren’t preaching to the public (even subtle messages — Americans are too smart and pick up on that crap). Rather, let’s make films that acknowledge the diversity in this nation — including those whose values differ from the left-wingers in Hollywood!
Thanks!
Mireya,
You don’t want Hollywood to “preach” to you? What the hell do you think you just did? That sounded like a sermon if I ever heard one.
Okay, thinking “Speed Racer” flopped because one of its film makers is a Transvestite that is insane. That movie flopped because it was a jumbled mess and 2 1/2 hours long. Most of America doesn’t know he’s a Transvestite!!
In case you forgot Jarhead was written by a Marine telling his story of the first Iraq war. It flopped because it was a mess and was marketed wrong. Not because it was anti war. How can you be against a war that was over 17 years ago?
IronMan wasn’t a coming of age story about a drunk? Did we watch the same movie?! He had a drink in several scenes. Where was he ever a drunk? It was a redemption story. About a man who sees the error of his ways and sets out on a journey to right those wrongs. Coming of age stories are usually about children or young adults who discover themselves through a series of milestone moments in their lives.
You are delusional if you think MI:3 did bad because of one Matt Lauer interview? I also love how you preach about diversity but vehemently assault a movie directed by someone with an alternative lifestyle, assault a movie about two gay men, and assault an actor who believes in something different than you do.
Where is the diversity in that? Like most uber religious Right-wingers you only see the world through your myopic morality and everyone else is trying to usurp your control and bring about the downfall of this nation.
What are you so afraid of?
Okay, Mireya, I couldn’t let this go.
What anti-abortion people hated Juno? Why would ANTI-abortion people hate that movie. She didn’t get an abortion. I would think they would love this movie. This is a movie about a girl who DID NOT GET AN ABORTION.
Did you see any of the films you talk about in your post? I did. The worst one of the bunch was “The Passion” in my opinion – okay, well “Speed Racer” was by far the worst but you get my point – why? Because it was boring, I had to read to many damn subtitles, and the violence was staggering (and I like violent movies) and actually took me out of the movie. Most of Hollywood didn’t like it because they felt it was anti-jewish. I’m not jewish at all and I agreed with them. You talk about preachy movies and this was the biggest culprit.
And just so you think I’m not some liberal pinko homosexual communist – I didn’t really like “Brokeback Mountain” either. I thought it was a fairly medocre movie at best that only got so much hype because of the “explicit” love scene – that wasn’t that explicit either. The performances were okay, and the pacing was of in the last half so that by the end I really didn’t give a crap that Jack Gyllenhall got killed (because it was telegraphed a mile a way) or that Heath Ledger was all alone. That’s why that movie didn’t make a lot of money.
And tell me, what subtle messages are American’s supposedly to smart to pick up on? Like the ones that are crammed down our throat everyday in commercials telling us to buy stuff we don’t need or that Sunny Delight is really good for our kids or that all white meat chicken nuggets are healthy or that light beer won’t make you fat but does make hot girls want to hang with you or etc. etc. etc. etc. You mean like those subtle messages?
i would expect Paramount to start wooing foreign funds and cash rich companies like Reliance. But they would be star f*****s of the worst kind.
After so many years of making money.. why can’t a company as big as Paramount afford to make its films with its own money, rather than borrowing?
Comment by John
Because they are smart enough to not use their own money.
The studios aren’t really in the business of making movies. They are in the business of stealing the up-front money from investors and leaving them high and dry on the back-end. The few occasional hits that they produce, every year, merely serve as an incentive to lure greedy investors in for the kill.
I’ve had the opportunity to see several film “business plans” and I can attest, from first hand experience, that the entire industry is nothing but a crime syndicate.
Lenders worldwide have finally caught on to this scam, and have had enough of it. I’m amazed that it’s taken this long, to tell the truth. It will be interesting to see where it goes from here.
I think this is a Deutsche Bank story more than it’s a Paramount story. Until the banking sector calms down banks are going to try and keep as much cash on hand as possible. There may be more private studio financing out there than ever before, it’s just coming from new places. It’s ironic all of the “Hollywood Types” driving around in there hybrids drooling over Al Gore protesting the treatment of Tibetan Monks may end up have there film financed by Mid-East oil money, and civil rights violating China.
Amen Myreya(no, I don’t go to church),
You hit it on the money. I am one of those millions of consumers alienated by the left wing, Hollywood elitists. They are so out of touch with the common American moviegoer. They pander big time to the radical few minority. What are they afarid of?? Oh well, they only have themselves to blaim for their misfortunes.
Hey Boyd,
Here are the top ten grossing films of 2008 so far – please inform me which one of these movies pandered to “the radical few minority”?
Iron Man Par. $313,671,653
Indiana Jones 4 Par. $311,040,397
Kung Fu Panda P/DW $203,500,614
Hancock Sony $171,434,779
Wall-E BV $168,099,359
Sex and the City $148,622,872
Prince Caspian BV $139,336,468
The Incredible Hulk $130,556,080
Wanted Uni. $115,613,470
and here are the top ten for 2007 – again same question.
Spider-Man 3 Sony $336,530,303
Shrek the Third P/DW $322,719,944
Transformers P/DW $319,246,193
Pirates 3 $309,420,425
Harry Potter 5 WB $292,004,738
I Am Legend WB $256,393,010
The Bourne Ultimatum $227,471,070
National Treasure:2 $219,964,115
Alvin and the Chipmunks $217,326,974
300 WB $210,614,939
You “conservatives” are so afraid that Hollywood is trying to jam liberal ideas down your throat. Wake up. Hollywood is trying to jam movies down your throat. Product. Something for you to buy. And lets not forget that the movies that are made by leftist Hollywood elitists are in fact owned and financed by right wing corporate elitists.
Have an original idea for once.