Apparition And Sony About To Buy ‘Splice’? (But Newmarket Is Still In It)

COMMENTS (11)

• I got a question. Let’s say the production company that made Splice spent $10 million to make it. Apparition buys it for $2.5 million. They spend $20 million on P&A. Let’s say Splice takes in $60 million at the box office. The theaters take $30 million. The P&A recoups $20 million. Who takes the rest of the $10 million usually in a deal like this? Is it all for Apparition or does the production company also participate in the films profits? Or do the initial investors take a loss of $7.5 million? If they do participate is it gross or net? I know someone will come in here and say “…it all depends on blah blah blah…” I am asking because there is always a template or jumping off point for these film buys.

  Comment by schnipple — Monday January 25, 2010 @ 6:07pm PST  Reply to this post

  • You make the same mistake every one does when trying to calculate these numbers in that you assume that all the revenues a film generates derives from theatrical box office. Box office accounts for only 40% or so of any films revenue stream.

    Comment by Consider this — Tuesday January 26, 2010 @ 2:28am PST  Reply to this post

    • You make the mistake of assuming that I’m assuming something. I get that theatrical is only a percentage of the revenue stream but that’s the slice of the pie I’m asking about. Please don’t point out my ignorance when I’m obviously stating the fact that I am ignorant in this area. If you want to be helpful, just answer the question.

      Comment by schnipple — Tuesday January 26, 2010 @ 8:50am PST  Reply to this post

  • That’s a dam good question! I have been wondering the same thing for years. I hope a reply will be posted. Bob M.

    Comment by Bob Moliari — Tuesday January 26, 2010 @ 12:03pm PST  Reply to this post

• Chris Donnelly also used to rep Natali, a brilliant director, who eventually left him for CAA. Donnelly is kind of the EEYORE of agents isn’t he? “Oh woe is me”

  Comment by Amblin Daze — Monday January 25, 2010 @ 6:42pm PST  Reply to this post

• a low MG for a film that cost $25m to make

  Comment by insider — Monday January 25, 2010 @ 7:51pm PST  Reply to this post

  • Insider you are so outside you are blind. The film didn’t cost anywhere near that. Go get your abacus and learn to count.

    Comment by BubbaGump — Monday January 25, 2010 @ 7:58pm PST  Reply to this post

• Schnipple, if Apparition buys it, Apparition owns it. In all likelihood, if the film cost Splice $10 mill to make and then Splice sold it for $2.5 then Splice’s investors lost $7.5 mill. If the film bombs in the marketplace, Splice is obviously on the hook for the most money: $2.5 mill plus the $20 mill p&a. Alternatively, if the film is a huge hit, Splice makes the most because it risked the most money. Risk reward.

  That said, and you not want to hear it, but these deals can truly go a million different ways. It’s all about negotiation and how badly (or not badly) does a company (or companies) want it. If I make a film that costs my investors $10 mill, I want them to get every penny of that money back at the very least and I will negotiate accordingly. BUT if you get into a situation where nobody else wants it (ie you only have one bidder) and your film doesn’t have distribution, what choice do you have? You probably have to sell (and cut your investor’s losses) or your film just sits on a shelf or at best plays with all of the Youtube losers. It can be tough. But I hate to dampen your spirits because once in a while, it can also be a blockbuster that’s in high demand. Again, it depends.

  Comment by Michael — Tuesday January 26, 2010 @ 8:12am PST  Reply to this post

• Get used to the following term…. E X E C U T I O N D E P E N D E N T …. which means if you make a film in today’s marketplace, whether its budget is $100 bucks or $100m, and you do not have a studio on board out in front (with a P&A commitment to move the needle in foreign), then whether your film breaks even or makes a profit is ENTIRELY dependent on how the film turns out… there are no downside models anymore unless you constructively use the market to finance your films.

  Good luck snowbunnies!!!

  Comment by titsmagee — Tuesday January 26, 2010 @ 3:48pm PST  Reply to this post

• CAA film sales guys are a joke… they pump their chests over what their flacks hail as big festival sales, but never point out that the MG is so far below what the investors put into the film against North America that they’ll never see shit back (especially since big MG’s mean no overages unless theatrical does 4x, 5x negative cost)… that’s why so many investors come and go in the indie space, while fat ass Quebecois cokeheads party all night on their last dime.

  Comment by Trudy — Tuesday January 26, 2010 @ 9:57pm PST  Reply to this post

• Actually Splice cost $27m to make, and when a deal such as this is made often you are talking about the sale of “percentages” of rights. And or control over future potential projects. It is possible for all partys to make money or lose money at the same time. Amounts are based on risk / reward as stated before.

  Cheers

  Comment by Michael — Saturday January 30, 2010 @ 6:34am PST  Reply to this post