Some people may wonder why many Hollywood movie manufacturers are so fond of high-investment works after entering the new millennium.

Almost every year, a large number of projects with investment costs of more than 100 million or even 200 million are filmed, and several superstars are invited to join?

Don’t they know about high investment and high risks? Are they not afraid of failure?

Of course they know that even the senior executives of various companies who have stepped down due to poor projects are not known how many, but why do they continue to implement such investment policies?

Isn’t it safer to make a big difference with a small amount? For example, “The Legend of the Ghosts”, and for example, “The Witch Blair”.

But if you think about it carefully, you will find that there are many such works, or are there many works that make a lot of profit by investing in blockbusters?

The probability and risk-reward ratio may bring you the answer.

Isn’t the reason why the above works become famous and even used as cases by major film companies to study them because their success is too difficult to replicate?

Blockbusters are not the case, they will be much more successful every year.

Besides, you definitely can't imagine that movies with investment costs between 100 million and 150 million are the most insurable projects. They are more likely to have a revenue of more than twice the profit than movies of other grades. Those who exceed this range, whether higher or lower, will bear some kind of risk of loss or unsatisfactory returns.

In other words, those low-cost small-scale films may not be very risky. Even if they can always make profits, the income of a normal blockbuster can match the income of five or six small-scale films. So the market may not accept the risk of failure, so how should we calculate it?

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

When converted into big data, it can be regarded as a probability problem. So why not choose a way to minimize the risk and return on investment.

This is also why the era of blockbusters came.

Take "Bad Guy" for example. A large investment of $100 million, plus $60 million in publicity and distribution expenses have also achieved very good market results.

The final box office of North America was 335.2 million US dollars. In the global market, some places have not yet drawn the picture. So far, the total cumulative amount is 688.23 million US dollars, and it is still struggling to move towards the 700 million mark.

But such box office data is enough to move any film company, which is even more so for Europa Pictures, which has been the best result since the company was founded.

And such blockbusters will be staged every year.

"007: Death at a Choice Day", "The Matrix 2: Reloading" and even "Find Nemo" that are still being released have achieved market returns that are in line with their value.

The first two may not be as stunning as "Bad Guy". After all, it is a series of movies, and it is a fan-friendly support.

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

Let’s talk about the rewards.

Lehman personally participated in the production of "Bad Guys" with dividends and fixed salary, while Mann Studio purely accounts for a part of the investment share.

The three parties jointly bear the huge risks of production and correspondingly win huge market returns.

Just such a work will bring an estimated income of 60 million US dollars to Mann Studio. Of course, this data must be deducted taxes and various taxes.

Although it has not been calculated in detail, it doesn’t seem to be less than 50 million. This is just a studio, and Lehman can earn about 10 million in person.

After all the theaters are released from the world, major theaters will pay dividends to Europa Pictures before the final accounts of the three companies can be calculated. After deducting the original investment of 15 million, the net profit income will be more than 35 million US dollars.

It's very profitable, isn't it? And he still takes the least part. Think about Paramount and Europa, these two companies are the real big deal.

The latter still gets long-term meal tickets. Even if the account is divided, the offline market will continue to bring profits. Of course, it is incomparable to the present, but at least the victory is not. Disney's annual company report is so good every year, and it is inseparable from its huge film library. "Snow White" filmed in 198, as of now, is still making money.

The rewards of this movie are not as high as those of "Buried Live". After all, the production cost of "Buried Live Live" is only a few hundred thousand, but it earns tens of millions. But looking at the actual situation, the two cannot be compared.

As long as a blockbuster is successful, it is indeed not necessarily comparable to several small-produced movies.

Since you are taking risks, why not take more and make more money?

High investment, high risk, high return.

Low investment, high risk, and not necessarily high returns.

It's you, how do you choose?

This is also the reason why Paramount Pictures is very upset that Tom Cruise earned such a high share in the Mission: Impossible series but had to pinch his nose to cooperate. It is also the reason why Europa Pictures released part of the profits to Lehman just to continue to maintain the cooperation.

Interests are the same between the two.

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

Think about it, although Paramount Pictures and Europa Pictures have not fully disclosed their internal profit figures, if you calculate it a little, at least it will be a net profit of more than 100 million yuan. This is still the result of deducting costs and taxes, and it will only be higher.

After all, do you know how to avoid taxes reasonably? You know that there are too many operations in large companies, which are not something that honest people like Lehman can imagine.

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

Even if the relevant copyright operation is aside, how should the company calculate the profits of stock price increase due to good news?

There is no harm if the market value is high. There are not many examples of stocks rising or falling due to the fluctuations in the film market.

At least, taking this time for example, the shareholders of Paramount Pictures are having fun, and Shirley Lansing is also very happy.

Such good results finally blocked those people's mouths.

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

It's a relatively virtuous cycle.

After the paintings in North America were released, Paramount Pictures was happy and remembered to hold a celebration party.

Originally, they planned to hold it when it exceeded 100 million, but Lehman refused.
Chapter completed!