Comcast CEO Brian Roberts told investors this morning that financial results at NBCUniversal — his 51/49 joint venture with General Electric — could be “flat, slightly down” this quarter due to disappointments at Universal Studios. “This year we have an unfortunate large miss in Battleship and The Five-Year Engagement,” he said at the Sanford C. Bernstein Strategic Decisions Conference. Aside from the flops, the business is “where we expected.” But the results are head spinning following a strong Q1, with NBCU’s operating cash flow +34.3% with help from Safe House and Dr Seuss’ the Lorax. “We told everybody, don’t get used to that,” Roberts says. Elsewhere in NBCU, Roberts says that NBC’s “Bob Greenblatt is chipping away at a turnaround” for the broadcast network, while the cable networks “are great.” This summer’s Olympics in London probably won’t contribute to the bottom line, though. Comcast already accounted for the deal as an “unfavorable contract,” although Roberts says that “the Olympics haven’t begun yet so it’s all ratings dependent.” He hopes the games will “get to break even or better over the next decade” as NBCU increases showings on cable. Although Roberts initially said that there was no big surprise from the NBCU acquisition last year, he says he was startled to see “how steady the cash flow appears to be from the theme parks” with crowds flocking to Orlando’s The Wizarding World Of Harry Potter and the Transformers ride in Los Angeles. So will Comcast buy more programming assets? “We have a built in answer,” Roberts says. “We have to buy out GE over the next six years.” Indeed, he notes, the NBC balance sheet “is there to buy out GE.”

Five Year Engagement has made 32 million worldwide on a 30 million budget — not great, but why is it in the same sentence as Battleship?
While the budget numbers may not be close there’s still P&A to consider along with ticket sale shares with exhibitors.
I understand your point, but it’s (5 Year) a long way from being profitable.
FYE won’t be profitable.
But it will make at least fifty million worldwide after it opens in Europe and South America, and at least another 15 million on DVD, digital and on demand worldwide. On a 30 million dollar budget and a 30 million P and A, it’s nowhere close to the typical studio flop.
Just checked on box office mojo — after last weekend it’s actually made almost 36 million on a 30 million dollar budget with UK, France, Germany yet to open.
Dr. Dan, here’s the #’s. If FYE cost 30MM to make, throw in another 15/20 MM to market and advertise. Now you’re at, let’s say, $45MM. For it to just break even – it has to reach a gross of around $90MM. Period. At 90, theatres take 1/2 – so you have 45 left over. That’s the real deal regarding studio accounting.
Perhaps because Battleship has made $281.1 million on a $250 million budget.
5 Year is a at 65 million loss right now. It can be in the same sentence as Battleship.
Just checked — it’s actually made 35 million dollars on a 30 million dollar budget, with most major territories yet to open, including UK. Seems odd for the CEO to highlight it, it doesn’t compare to most major studio misfires.
Both the Five-Year Engagement and Battleship would have done much better had they not been released against The Avengers. Terrible release scheduling and completely avoidable.
What does THE AVENGERS have anything to do with FIVE YEAR ENGAGEMENT, which opened before and died in its first weekend?
The Five-Year Engagement had a weak start, but what really killed it was the almost 50% second-week drop and the resulting ridiculously short life-span after it ran straight into the monster cross-over hit of The Avengers.
Had it been released a couple of weeks earlier then it would have made many millions more. Not a hit, but much less of a flop.
Yeah that’s only partly right, in hindsight. FYE wasn’t seeking the same demo as Avengers, and vice versa. The reviews were mixed at best – and that was AFTER it opened up for the Tribeca Film Festival. As for BATTLESHIP, the studio’s own strategy, to offset the onslaught of AVENGERS, was by opening up much earlier internationally. The bad reviews that spread over the web + social media + the ridiculous source material = disaster.
Battleship would have done poorly if it opened against Gigli 2.
Battleship looked like a complete misfire since the day they started marketing it. John Carter was also hurt by HORRIBLE marketing, but I don’t think that movie was as horrible as it’s marketing, while Battleship was as bad or worse than it’s marketing.
There are many talented writers out there that could have actually made the Battleship concept work……without aliens. There are plenty of weapons scenarios…dictator gone wild scenarios…and red scare scenarios that could have brought an interesting take to the otherwise dull board game.
You’d think the color red these studios are seeing would help steer them to develop stronger content; Transformers franchise was one thing but Battleship? There’s no built-in audience for a board game… Hungry Hippos anyone? Use your heads! D’oh!
I know….right? Plus, Battleship as a board game is about as interesting after 10 minutes as watching paint dry (have they made a movie out of that yet?)
Why not focus on more complex games/interesting games to make a movie about? Clue was done successfully, so it can be done.
Battelship was a good movie, I have seen nothing but good reviews from actual people who have seen the movie. Of course most of the bad reviews are from people on sites who have never seen the movie and are getting their opinions from Web Reviews who didnt like the movie before it was ever released.
Aleric, I’ve seen the movie. I even stayed until the end and watched that last little scene after the credits rolled. It’s a bad movie.
Nice try but that line ain’t working.
Battleship was awful and I paid my full money to see it. But if you really think it was good then fair enough. There’s no reason to hide behind the lame excuse that claims only those who haven’t seen it are the ones badmouthing it.
I’m betting you also think it was nothing other than cutting ‘of Mars’ from John Carter’s title that is the sole reason THAT was a disaster as well.
Because the studio only sees half that (15.5m) and they probably spent almost twice the budget on
marketing (say, 50m), resulting in a 65m loss.
What?! Battleship wasn’t the Avengers not by a long shot… but cost $209 million to produce and it has earned worldwide $240,600,000… that’s more than the Five Year Engagement…
Srsly and battleship has made 200+ ww, not spectacular but if comcast’s business can be torpedoed by a couple underperforming pix then they have bigger issues. Cop out
DONT FORGET — theater owners take between 45-55% of gross box office. So when a movie “makes” $32M, the studios”gets” half that. So, Five Year Engagement hasn’t made a dime, and when you throw in P&A costs, it won’t.
For the record, the Five year engagement with jason segal and emily blunt is one of the best movies of the year and Battleship is shockingly one of the worst movies of the year. 5 year engagement is due to bad scheduling which they continue to do with Bourne legacy going up against total recall.
Outside of the fact that it was 40 minutes too long, felt like a first assembly as opposed to a finished film, Jason has gotten tiring in this role, Emily is not a movie star and just an average actress, the premise of “a 5 year engagement” being something people want to see…then yes, it was one of the best movies of the year.
30 minutes of it were great. Pretty much every scene with Chris Pratt.
TV studios make TV movies. Period.
Reviews don’t matter. The stars or lack of stars don’t matter. The only thing that matters is when they announced they were turning Matells Battleship Game into a movie every single person in the entire united states of America said ” that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard, Hollywood is out of ideas” and true or not the studio never got anyone to change their mind.
“the studio never got anyone to change their mind.”
Probably because THERE WEREN’T ANY FRIGGIN ALIENS IN THE BOARD GAME.
Plus, Riahanna is a joke. If you want to be taken seriously, don’t cast a joke in your movie. I do realize that Taylor Kitch’s flop John Carter occurred after they already cast him, so that can be forgiven. Though, he was a bad actor in both, so that can’t be.
I haven’t seen Battleship–nor do I intend to–but can you (Wicked) really blame Rihanna for it’s failure, considering that she’s not the lead?
There’s plenty of blame to go around (though I would start with whomever green-lighted it in the first place) but to blame someone who was probably no more than a supporting character seems a bit odd.
And your reasons for not blaming Taylor Kitsch are a bit lame. If anyone is going to be the heavy, rest it on the shoulders of the lead.
Obviously he wasn’t going to single out Battleship and its producers, director, marketers as the sole reason for the weakened quarter. Spread the wealth, uh, blame…
What an utter shambles Universal is at the moment. I knew they were circling the drain creatively when they talked about the Fast & Furious franchise being spun off to different genres ‘like a Bourne style thriller’. Urgh.
How can such an iconic studio be so reliant on a franchise like F&F which is enjoyable enough but hardly warrants such ‘pride of place’ when the last film finished with just a $600m+ WW gross.
Battleship cost at least $300m (though everyone seems to have a different figure) to produce and they probably have well over $200m invested in 47 Ronin at the moment.
FYE looked solid enough but the trailer was so dour and long it basically gave away the entire film and felt like it was warning us off rather than bring us in.
I just hope that when Comcast grow tired of Universal Pictures (and they will) that they sell the film studio to someone with a little more respect for the beloved brand than allow her to produce and release a film based on a f*cking board game.