MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

The TMNT Deal

Interesting.
The Turtles produce about $20 million a year in total revenue for 4Kids, which includes their cut on the licensing. That was off around 10% last year after being off about 4% the year before. It’s hard to determine how that translates into net, since 4Kids has a big enough parade of shows to fill 5 hours a week of family programming. TMNT is the biggest of their properties.
There have been four TMNT movies made since 1993. Each of the first three – a New Line set – made less and less. The first film grossed the most: $135m domestic and $67m international. The fourth film, for WB, did $54m domestic, $42m international.
Obviously, Paramount did not buy this franchise with the hopes of making their money back after a decade or two. So we can only assume that they hope they can do a Transformers-esque major rebranding of the franchise that will not only make it a $400m+ worldwide grossing franchise, but will then lead to a TV rebrand worth tens of or hundreds of millions.
The ongoing value of the franchise does mean that they will eventually make their money back, even if they don’t make a film… eventually… decades is not a joke. But beyond that, this purchase rivals the backbreaking costs behind WB relaunching Superman and dwarfs the rights costs to do Terminator reboots post-Cameron. It is probably the most expensive movie rights acquisitions in history.
None of these are for sale, as such. And remember that we are talking just about rights. Production costs and the rest are additional and include some risk…
But…
Bond, as the only truly ongoing consistent franchise, would probably be worth about $200 million… which would still take a decade or more to recoup.
Star Trek would probably be valued at about $150 million because of the hope of another round of television shows.
Batman, Transformers, and Spider-Man are proven in the stratosphere of worldwide grosses and would each be valued near $500 million on their own at this moment.
Would The Hulk be worth $60 million? Not right now. If someone thought they had a hit TV series coming that could be made relatively cheaply, perhaps. But not based on the movie results. Aside from Iron Man, superhot for the moment, there really isn’t a single cartoon character that really seems worth a price tag this high.
The Spy Kids franchise generated almost the same exact amount of box office revenue with three films as TMNT has in four. Do you imagine that anyone would pay even $30 million for that franchise? Yet, production has been significantly cheaper and the television rights really haven’t been exploited.
Well… the proof will be in the pudding. It is a big dollar gamble in a tight dollar world. 4Kids has been operating with annual losses for years, so this cash infusion is a home run for their short-term future. In the end, if Paramount can make this a $150m budget/$500m worldwide grossing (or better) kind of movie franchise and spin out a strong CG show for Nickelodeon based on the reboot (or vice versa), it will be a great call for the studio. And if not… not.

Be Sociable, Share!

25 Responses to “The TMNT Deal”

  1. SJRubinstein says:

    I forget who published it, but there was recently (last couple of months) a HUGE Volume 1 collecting the first few appearances of the Ninja Turtles in all their eighties, NYC, scuzzy black-and-white glory. Of course, it’s pretty far removed from the more kid-friendly incarnation that exists now, but not COMPLETELY removed. You can still see how the anarchic Eastman and Laird spirit has stayed with the series.
    It’s well worth picking up to remember that there really is some great source material to mine from as the original animated series did. It’s a truly great, crazy-ass comic that pushed the boundaries at the time in the underground (no pun intended).

  2. IOIOIOI says:

    The Turtles are worth spending the cash on. They are turtles that fight like ninjas. If Paramount can figure out a way to keep them from Bay, and let someone worth a shit produce that film. That’s money in the bank.

  3. movielocke says:

    huge potential upside in toy and television and video games for example, if the franchise gets a Transformers/Batman Begins type treatment. The original was dark and black and white and noone gives a shit. the cartoon and movies were insanely popular more or less comedies with action elements and goofy in spirit. Split the difference, a little darker than Transformers, not as pro-teen, anti-kid as the Batman relaunch. But Transformers really is the better model here, Don’t go too goofy (Krang, Dimension X) or too dark but hit the sweetspot.
    The tricky part is nailing how April relates to the turtles. You can’t really have a romantic element, too much of a turn off, but it’s also cheap to try to give her a love interest (like the failed Casey Jones subplot in the original movie). if you can make the connection between April and Turtles work, though, it’s like nailing the Shia-Autobots connection. Bingo, big grosses.

  4. bulldog68 says:

    “If Paramount can figure out a way to keep them from Bay, and let someone worth a shit produce that film. That’s money in the bank.”
    Point of order IOIOIOI, Bay just made Paramount $1.5 billion worldwide in two years, with a movie about CARS THAT TURN INTO ROBOTS. Bay is exactly want Paramount wants to make a movie about TURTLES THAT FIGHT KARATE.
    There is no ‘for your consideration’ in the equation here IOIOIOI, so yeah, I think they would give a shit about Bay, because he is “MONEY IN THE BANK.” Bay won’t give a shit about aesthetics, or storytelling, or steady pacing. Bay’s TMNT would be about four kick ass turtles, all fawning over some hot ass chick who also kicks ass, and plot to rule or destroy the world. It will be ninjas and explosions.
    Don’t get me wrong, I liked Tran1 and disliked Tran2, but Bay is exactly whom Paramount wants to take the helm of TMNT. If you were Paramount, IOIOIOI, would you walk away from a potential $1.5 billion dollars?

  5. jeffmcm says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe IOI is irritated that Bay’s movies didn’t more closely follow the continuity of the ’80s cartoon (or the comic book series? Since they were not the same).
    I have a hard time seeing this as a 4-quadrant $400m franchise, but then that’s why I’m not a Hollywood big-shot. Cowabunga, he said quietly.

  6. IOIOIOI says:

    Jeff: the first one had a lot more to do with the cartoon than the second one did. The second one seemed like a reason to try to kill Shia and Meghan. Good for Bay, but it makes it a shitty movie.
    Bulldog: Jeff makes a point about four-quadrant appeal, and this is NICK. These are the people (Nick is worth more than Paramount. Sorry, it’s true, because the Sponge is BANK!) that gave M. Knight Avatar. They should give the Turtles to someone who gets action, gets comedy, and will not treat the audience like assholes. If they do that, then they have another franchise that may appeal to more than like two quadrants.
    Until then, you take your 1.5 billion, turn it sides, and stick it up Michael Bay’s CANDY ASS!!!!

  7. The Big Perm says:

    DP missed the part though, where they also bought merchandising rights. Which have got to still be decent, and with a hit movie, even better. Spy Kids wouldn’t have the toys and comic books and other spin offs as the Turtles. So this isn’t such a bad deal after all maybe.

  8. Exactly Big Perm. Just as the Disney/Marvel deal was about getting to make T-shirts with Spider-Man and Mickey Mouse together, this deal is about seeing lunch boxes with Michelangelo and Dora the Explorer (or, slightly more awesome, Shredder and Swiper plotting together to steal the newest Dora-Oats or whatever in a cereal commercial).
    Oh, and the first turtles film was quite dark and violent for its PG rating. It was just as underlit as the first Batman, but had an extra realism by taking place in a real city. How many other kids flicks would have a supporting hero committing murder (Casey Jones turning on a trash compactor to finish off a defeated villain) and/or a teenager being beaten to death onscreen? Quality wise, it holds up shockingly well. Everytime I watch it, I think ‘this is gonna be the time when I realize it wasn’t that good’, but every time I’m surprised how much I enjoy it.

  9. Eric says:

    Wasn’t the recent CGI TMNT movie supposed to be a darker reboot? Because it was goddamn terrible. You can’t build a franchise without meeting some baseline of quality.

  10. SJRubinstein says:

    Casey Jones = the one comic book “hero” who, in the comics, always seemed to be coming straight from a Bill Lustig movie.
    CASEY: What’d I miss, Turtles? Was just peeling the skin of some blonde’s face.
    LEONARDO: Ha-ha. Oh, Casey.

  11. LYT says:

    I liked the CG TMNT movie a lot, but it wasn’t really a reboot, as it took place within the established live-action movie continuity.
    There IS a darker, live-action reboot coming. I spoke to the producer at Comic-Con, and he pointed out that if you think about it, the entire underlying premise of TMNT is that it’s about a ninja master so obsessed with revenge that he trains four orphans from birth so that when they’re old enough, they will murder his rival.

  12. David Poland says:

    “includes their cut on the licensing.”
    Didn’t miss it at all.
    It’s not nearly as much money as you think it is.
    The “we’ll make it back in the merchandising” scam has incredible legs, but is rarely true.
    TMNT is a soft product right now. The revenue stream from merchandising (aka a part of licensing) is not huge. It’s money, but it’s not going to pay for this deal anytime soon. And it is unlikely to turn unless they turn the whole franchise… which takes me back to my point.

  13. storymark says:

    “There IS a darker, live-action reboot coming. I spoke to the producer at Comic-Con….”
    Yeah, but that was what was in the works before this sale. I know a guy who was a consultant on that project…. he is in a very, very bad mood right now.

  14. The Big Perm says:

    That’s the thing though, isn’t it DP? It’s soft “right now.” So they need to make a really good, accessible mainstream movie and then they can make money.
    It doesn’t seem THAT difficult…this is a series that’s been around for what, 25 years now? And there hasn’t been a real action movie version of it, it’s always skewed to comedy. So they just need to make a relatively cheap, good action movie and be skimpy on the kiddie stuff.
    I’d argue that the original movie wasn’t dark at all, even Casey Jones killing the bad guy at the end…as it was played for a broad laugh. If Casey beat the guy to death with a hockey stick, I’d give it to you.

  15. David Poland says:

    If getting it right was that easy, Big Perm, then everyone would be doing it… starting with the people who HAD the rights to TMNT.
    We are in a marketplace where movies grossing over $200 million are not a lock to be profitable. That’s not changing anytime soon… unless the price tags for these films go down.

  16. The Big Perm says:

    Well, you always tend to assume the previous rights holders didn’t know what they were doing when you buy something like that. What they didn’t have was a big studio action type of picture. I mean, cartoons are only going to get you so far. I think cartoons aimed at young boys is about the worst possible investment ever. But live action monster kung fu movies aimed at young boys? Sweet.
    They just need to make it cheap enough. There’s no way in hell I’d spend 100 million on any turtle movie. Or even close to that.

  17. SJRubinstein says:

    “it’s about a ninja master so obsessed with revenge that he trains four orphans from birth so that when they’re old enough, they will murder his rival.”
    But not even his rival, the rival is the guy (the Shredder) who murdered his master. The master who sneaked around on his one-time friend and FUCKED THE GUY’S GIRLFRIEND leading to the Shredder killing him in revenge in the first place.
    So, Splinter’s motivation is kind of to get revenge for a cuckolding prick, who just happens to be his dead master.
    I think they softened that a bit in the cartoon.

  18. palmtree says:

    The “secret” of the TMNT franchise is not simply making a good movie. It’s marketing it to the Turtles audience…which is not really young tykes, but people well in their 20s and 30s, i.e. people who grew up on it and love the characters.
    The TMNT CG movie failed, because WB didn’t bother spending the money to bring in the 20-30 somethings. If Paramount is equally stingy, then the box office will just make the Turtles seem like yesterday’s news.
    Full disclosure: I worked on TMNT the CG movie, and it is actually really good.

  19. leahnz says:

    my boy is a fan of the recent animated TMNT flick, not bad action/comedy, decent story and well-rendered (i thought it was quite funny but i might be easily amused)

  20. Joe Leydon says:

    I remember, back in the late ’80s/early ’90s, when you simply could NOT find any of the Ninja Turtle action figures ANYWHERE in Houston, because they sold out so quickly. Imagine my surprise when, while walking down a side street in Cannes during the film festival in, oh, I think 1990, seeing an entire window displayed filled with the suckers. Imagine my son’s surprise when he received a Fed Ex package from Cannes…

  21. leahnz says:

    did he say, “cowabunga, dude!” to you for being such a nice dad?

  22. leahnz says:

    (my son’s love of katanas and nun-chucks is a direct result of his fascination with mikey, rafael, leo and donatello)

  23. leahnz says:

    or ‘raphael’ if i weren’t so retarded

  24. Joe Leydon says:

    Funnily enough, this reminds me of a time several years ago when I was invited to be at some sort of international event honoring the late Orson Welles in Morocco. Evidently, the king of the country had sent out invites (through PR folks, of course) to US journalists to attend. Trouble was, the event took place directly opposite my son

  25. leahnz says:

    he might play it cool, but i bet your boy will always remember that you chose HIS party over that of a king, that his dad put him first, and how special that made him feel

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon