Is this a wrap for Quentin Tarantino?
That may sound bizarre, given the bluster Harvey Weinstein was spewing last weekend, but let’s examine the facts. Everyone has been proclaiming that Tarantino’s new, WWII monstrosity, which opened to an “unheard-of" $37.6 million, his “biggest opening to date.”
But wait a minute --
Every picture that “opens” breaks some record -- according to Harvey, “Basterds” is #1 in “the last two-weeks of August” (but only the #11 picture for all of August!). Consider, for example: “Pulp Fiction,” probably the best movie of the ‘90s. It opened on 1,300 screens in 1994 to roughly $9 million.
That was when ticket prices were $6! I paid $12.50 to see a worse movie that opened on 4,400 screens for the above-mentioned total of $37.6 million (if you believe that -- my screening was only 1/3 full,)
So let’s assume “Pulp” opened today on 4,400 screens at a $12.50 average per ticket -- simple math tells you that “Pulp” would have equaled the opening of “Basterds.” Add in ticket-price inflation and it would have doubled it.
In short, Tarantino is, from a financiers’ point of view, a declining proposition. “Reservoir Dogs” did less than $1 million in its initial go. Quentin’s picture after “Pulp,” “Four Rooms,” opened to less than $500,000, “Jackie Brown” was a bust, as was “Grindhouse.”
Presuming “Basterds” follows pattern and falls off 50 percent this weekend, it’ll tumble off a cliff for a total of somewhere between $75 and 100 million -- hardly enough to give the Weinsteins a much-need cash influx.
The problem for Quentin is that he’s never directed a picture for anyone other than the Weinsteins. So let’s say, just hypothetically, that the Weinsteins run out of money and are either forced out of or take a back seat in their own company, loaning their name to projects but having no real control (which seems to be the direction their backers are heading, according to the press).
Who then -- what studio? -- is going to watch over Quentin? Let’s assume the best scenario for “Basterds” is $75-$100 million. As fans know, only half of that comes back to the studio, or $35-$50 million.
The Weinsteins probably spent that much (based on industry averages) “opening” the picture. Hence, Ben Fritz’ comment that it may take “some time” to see any cash. I would argue that time is, well, never.
Remember people like Brad Pitt are, typically, “first-dollar gross” players -- so any profits go to them first. Then remember that the Weinsteins didn’t put up that money -- no studio does. Studios are like real estate brokers -- it’s never their money. They either borrow it from Bank of America -- historically the largest entertainment lender -- or a similar institution.
That means they’re paying interest from the time they borrow it till the time they repay it.
Even if the picture does $100 million (doubtful) the Weinstein Company is still $20 million or more in the hole.
