The Hot Blog: More Nikki Trouble

« 20 Weeks Of Summer... That's A Wrap! | Main | The Crow T Poll »

August 16, 2007

More Nikki Trouble

The ongoing saga of Nikki Finke continues with today’s “exclusive” on Jim Carrey’s salary structure for The Yes Man.

Frankly, if I wanted to waste the time and energy, annotating the obvious sources that are throwing her the gossip (Nikki is now the best place to go, overtaking Michael Fleming, since she will run whatever you tell her and makes her excited, and will swear it wasn’t you until the end) and the basic mistakes in logic in what she writes, I could start another blog.

In any case, today’s Jim Carrey story is classic Nikki.

Let’s work backwards. Last paragraph – “Considering Jim's waning popularity, it's a big question mark whether Carrey can carry a comedy to $150 mil anymore. If he does, and the budget and marketing overages don't occur, and Jupiter aligns with Mars, then I'm told it's possible for the actor to make a phenomenal $78M.”

Do the math. For starters, $150 million domestic equals $80 million back to the studio. So the $78 million figure makes no sense in any way in that case.

Let’s try to figure out worldwide theatrical. Carrey’s career has been about 50/50 domestic/foreign (the more verbal the comedy, the lower the overseas percentage). So let’s say Nikki means $300 million worldwide. (Only Liar, Liar and Bruce Almighty have ever hit that mark without Carrey in a mask.) That means about $160 million back to the studio. Nikki is claiming the movie has a $70 million production and $50 million marketing target going into production, so that would leave $40 million in real net after this success. So still no $78 million… even with WB doing the deal with no potential profits. (Note: Using worldwide numbers is also problematic because there is no way that the marketing budget for any major studio movie will be $50 million worldwide… period… least of all for Warners.)

Moving on to Home Entertainment and ancillaries - which is when it becomes truly amusing to read “as much as $78 million,” which is someone’s formula, but inexplicably specific – which by Nikki’s 36.2% figure (“Jim has a cash-break deal in theory of at most 36.2% on the back end”) means a minimum of $65 million is coming from this area, which means that the projected post-theatrical net numbers would have to be $180 million. That seems reasonable, though the ancillary will drop if the gross drops.

Now, in this whole scenario, if Carrey had a $20m/20% with 10% of the Home Ent net, with the same figures, you’re looking at $78 million that way.

So this deal doesn’t seem like to make Jim Carrey any richer if the film is a big hit (unless it is Bruce Almighty big, which would make him roughly $40 million richer in this scenario than in a 20/20). But it does what the studios are trying desperately to do these days… minimize their upfront cash risk. And this deal was clearly crafted so Carrey would make every dime he ever hoped to from a big hit and not so much if the film doesn’t hit.

The biggest thing Nikki doesn’t bother to consider is whether the movie would have gotten a greenlight anywhere in town with a more traditional deal. If Carrey is forsaking $20 million, that means the budget was at $90 million going in. And for the studio, that means that the break-even, with every revenue stream in, would be roughly $190 million worldwide without any gross points coming out… which is a little less than Knocked Up will ultimately do worldwide. Start taking 20% out against the $20 million and your breakeven jumps to $220 million and then, with a net/gross play on ancillaries, it rises to over $250 million to break even.

Crazy.

And of course, this is the insanity of talent deals in the DVD era. These numbers simply wouldn’t even be able to be contemplated before DVD. And now, not getting them is “the worst talent deal ever in Hollywood.”

And let’s look at the downside risk. Forget about, “He’s rich… he can afford to take the hit.” That’s call a backhanded slap, not a rationalization that anyone in Carrey’s camp would use.

But if the film matched Carrey’s worst comedy showing in the last decade, $150 million worldwide for Me, Myself & Irene, Carrey would still make over $20 million. The formula is $82.5 net towards costs from theatrical and let’s say $100 million net on Home Ent and ancillaries, leaving $62.5 million over costs, 36.2% of which goes to Carrey (or $22.6 million).

What a nightmare for Jim Carrey!

Oh… and the source of Nikki’s gossip of the day? Hint: “I know that Nick Stevens was personally and professionally devastated when Carrey lost the Used Guys project, and I can't imagine anyone else doing a better job of agenting for the actor in that situation or throughout his career.” DHD, Sept 13, 2006, shortly after Nick Stevens was fired. Hmmm…

This is the thing about Nikki. She is the hardest working gossip columnist in town. And if you have something nasty to say and can convince her that you are on her side, she will run it from your perspective... because she really doesn't seem to have the knowledge or interest in actually considering these ideas for herself.

This, by the way, is how she got dumped by The NY Post… for writing a factually inaccurate story (based on public statements by Michael Eisner that she hadn’t worked through regarding what it really meant) about Disney and then going nuclear, accusing Murdoch and Eisner of conspiring against her when Disney balked.

The tricky part is, these details are valuable, assuming they are accurate. So on that front, congrats to her. But the problem is the spin, which in an industry of people who love gossip more than detail, gets a lot of attention and leads to a lot of disinformation being touted as fact.

My piece here would not have been possible without her... but it also would not have been necessary. If she just offered the facts, it would be great journalism. But instead, it is malicious gossip... her stock in trade.

And sadly, she is leading others down this road, including some major publications. They can blame the internet all they want, but in the end, we are all responsible for the choices we make... even if Hollywood doesn't demand much accountability from the press... since in the end, the green of money remains more important to this town than the red face of embarrassment.

Posted by poland at August 16, 2007 12:35 PM

Comments

The real shame of this is that The Yes Man is a very funny British book and I stress "British." I really hate that Carrey is probably going to turn this dry, witty and subtly hilarious book into Liar Liar 2.

Posted by: Noah at August 16, 2007 01:11 PM

not just a gossip columnist
a BAD gossip columnist
with no pride and no ethics

Posted by: Don Murphy at August 16, 2007 02:35 PM

Don: OK, let me guess -- you're riffing on Ben Kingsley in Pascali's Island, right?

Posted by: Joe Leydon at August 16, 2007 03:13 PM

The real shame is she's become the biggest Hollywood reporter on the net by running bs stories time and time again.

Posted by: MASON at August 16, 2007 03:38 PM

Just to set the record straight, on July 29, 2003, David Poland's own MCN ran an announcement that the California Court of Appeals ruled in my favor. So did the lower court. http://www.moviecitynews.com/Notepad/2003/030729_pr.html

Among other things, the appeals panel unanimously found that my stories about Disney for the New York Post were accurate, and that my case had a probability of prevailing on the libel and other issues. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/b160267.pdf

Therefore, Poland is wrong to now claim I wrote a "factually inaccurate article" about Disney back then. Then again, whatever Poland writes about me is always wrong.

Posted by: Nikki Finke at August 16, 2007 04:17 PM

if you build it, she will come

Posted by: hendhogan at August 16, 2007 04:34 PM

That is not Poland's claim, though Nikki. He is merely reciting on what grounds NY Post let you go and he says that claim is actually Eisner's.

"for writing a factually inaccurate story (based on public statements by Michael Eisner"

But how about the other claims about your piece? You just took one tiny bit of the piece out of context.

Posted by: Noah at August 16, 2007 05:01 PM

Now this has become rather interesting. Miami Heat calls you out yet again as a journalist, but you do not go after him after he called you out? Huh? Who cares about what MCN stated about your firing or dismissal. You were called out on a PROFESSIONAL level -- yet again -- by David Poland, and this is the best rebuttal you have to the man? That's weak. It's so damn weak that the weakness of your rebuttal defies analogy.

Posted by: IOIOIOI at August 16, 2007 05:52 PM

(Sigh.) Such nonsense. Just laughable. 'Bye.

Posted by: Nikki Finke at August 16, 2007 05:55 PM

Which part is nonsense, exactly, Nikki? It seems pretty easy to act like you're above all this childish "nonsense" and add your quips, but you don't really do anything else to defend yourself against these accusations. I would think that if someone was spreading false rumors against me and my work, I would counter those claims. Instead, you find one little nit to pick and then call us out as nonsensical and laughable. The onus should be on the author of the blog to shoot down false allegations if they are indeed false, especially when those allegations are made clearly and with information to back it up.

Posted by: Noah at August 16, 2007 07:37 PM

I liked the recent DHD post wherein Nikki blasts the Hollywood Reporter for acknowledging that Merv Griffin was - gasp! - gay.

On THIS she takes the high road?

Posted by: Rob at August 17, 2007 10:08 AM

I think any agent would say that the problem with Carrey's deal, and why it's not fitting for a man of his stature, is the old adage of "The Creative Hollywood accounting".

I don't know how they get away with it and not get investigated by the SEC. But they don't, so they do.

So in short, Poland, get off your high horse. Unless Carrey is counting the beans, this was a bad deal.

Mark my words, it will end up in a law suite if Yes Man makes ANY money.

Posted by: hqmeister at August 17, 2007 10:11 AM

aw, i ended up the law suite one night when the hotel had overbooked. complimentary Toblerone!

Posted by: Armin Tamzarian at August 17, 2007 10:58 AM

Well hqmeister, you are assuming you know the details of the deal. I seriously doubt that this deal has landmarks that are reliant on the vagueries of "studio accounting."

Do you really think that CAA and Miller/Gold are ignorant enough not to define the perameters of the terms of the agreement?

Investigated by the SEC? What the hell are you talking about?

Your words are marked.

But I would suspect that any agent would be looking at this deal - which was reported by Nikki via gossip, not actual access to the hard details of the deal itself - and figuring out how to get the same deal for their clients who have become too expensive for studios to hire at the traditional prices. And you can bet that there are 100 actors out there in the under-10-million range who have projects they would love to get a deal like this on...

You know, hq, the business is in a silent recession. It would be very easy for agents if they could keep demanding the "traditional" amounts and get movies made. But have you noticed... 6 of the Top 10 grossers this year are movies without gross point actors and a 7th has three gross point actors who didn't get their price?

I'm not saying that this deal is not more risky than a 20/20. What I am saying is, do the math. It's still quite likely to be a $20 million plus payday, no matter how mediocre the film. And the air above that has upside... and downside. But if you want to make $90 million no-effects comedies, there has to be a better answer than just sticking to your guns.

And if Carrey's camp isn't counting the beans, they have trouble on every film he's made. Theatrical is public and DVD is accountable and the notion that WB is going to grow the cost of the movie freely against his payday is the kind of obvious game that must be accounted for in the contract. No one is stupid enough to give up control to that degree, without having to do the daily accounting during production.

Posted by: David Poland at August 17, 2007 11:16 AM

Well of course we don't know the details of the Carrey's deal, or any deal in Hollywood for that matter. But we know the principles behind it, and that's what we're talking about.

As for Creative Hollywood accounting...It's true that an agency's worth is in their Accounting Department. Because without it, their clients would never get paid properly.

But even if you have a Top House Agency, it just doesn't matter. It doesn't matter who you are or who you're Rep by....chances are, Net profits means no Profits.

Look at Peter Jackson, he just won a ton of Oscars, made Billions of dollars for New Line, but yet, he still has to sue them for a 100 million he says they owe him.

Tom Hanks and Rita are in Net Profit battle over "My Big Fat Greek Wedding", And he's about as Golden as you can get...

And that's just recently, you have Alan Alda a few years back suing Fox over Net profits regarding M.A.S.H. At the same time you had David Duchovny suing about syndication of X-Files.

This has been going on FOREVER. I mean, look at "Coming to America". You had Studio Exces going into court. Swearing an Oath and saying that that movie hasn't turned a profit.

LOL, what are they? The Tobacco Industry?

So yes, as an Agent POV, any deal that, more likely than not, end up in a court room, is a bad deal.

Which brings me to my side point. Fox, Disney, Warner Brothers, Paramount , MGM...these are all publicly traded companies who are less than transparent when it comes to their accounting.

And if you really need an example of this, Let's look at the Two Peters (Jon Peter & Peter Guber) and their days at Columbia.

Sure it's an extreme example of people running a studio, but a great example on how a studio operates. How much does a movie cost? It's anyone's guess.

And again, since they're publicly traded companies, I wonder how this loose, non-transparent accounting flies by the SEC.

Posted by: hqmeister at August 17, 2007 01:12 PM

I would like nothing better than for people to feed Nikki information all day long (this so called "gossip") and for DP to apply his pretzel logic to it.

Posted by: T. Holly at August 17, 2007 02:13 PM

You are sooooo jealous David Poland...

It is soooooooooooooooooooooooo obvious.

(Talk about calling the kettle black.)

"Thought you had her this time didn't ya sheriff!"

If you spent as much time giving her credit when she is correct - as you do when you think she's wrong - there wouldn't be enough space on your website left for your own silly dribble.

I supported youin the past when you told everyone Spideyman sucked...

Now I regret even doing that - you silly little monkey you!

GIVE IT A REST POLAND! Trying to bring others down, will NEVER lift you up. Especially you.

Posted by: whatnokiss at August 17, 2007 08:21 PM

Thank you, Nikki.

Posted by: David Poland at August 18, 2007 12:52 AM

Your EGO is AMAZING Poleman.

Here Nikki bothers to write to you today with her real name and you STILL don't get it do you...

Let's meet for lunch Dave, and I'll show you my dick and then maybe you'll get the point...

(If I were Nikki, would I sit on you face and kick your ass.)

But I'm not - so I'll just let you take me to lunch and prove that "WhatNoKiss" is a guy - a guy you don't want to “fence” with.

(Am I holding my breath waiting for you to respond? Not likely.)

You never keep your promises, why should I expect you to show up for lunch? (You only date pussies who make you look pretty and want to kiss your ass anyway.) And since I wouldn't care to kiss another guy, I'll bet you're not going to ask me out at all.

Snivel – Snivel.
If only you knew who I really am.
(You would be so pissed if you found out how cheated were out of a knowledgeable and adequate response.)

Have a burrito for me big guy!
(I hate Taco Bell anyway.)

Posted by: whatnokiss at August 18, 2007 01:38 AM

Ugh, I can't believe people still do this on the internet; making vicious personal attacks and then hiding behind anonymity, then reveling with glee at the fact that nobody knows who you are and thinking for a minute that somebody cares. If that's your thing, then please go to Aint It Cool, whatnokiss.

Posted by: Noah at August 18, 2007 01:52 AM

Noah ... quit sniveling.
And quit thinking I care about you or what you other somebodies think. I'm not writing for you, I'm writing to Dave. You're just a Poland groupie - oh for joy!

If we were all supposed to take your silly advice, Dave would have to quit this day job at MCN and have to go back to writing cute little screenplays.

(Someday - I'll let Dave know who I am, but in the mean time ... there's too much glee to be had watching him thrust in his sword, only to find out he stabbed the wrong meat.)

Get a life Dave ... besides just making vicious personal attacks on others and hiding behind you blogger groupies like Noah for support.

And to prove the point - attack another friend of mine like Jeff Wells one of these days and watch me come down on you for that as well.

(nikki wouldn't act like that, now would she)

Kiss-Kiss

Posted by: whatnokiss at August 18, 2007 09:41 AM

You must have some ego to think that so much time and effort is spent on you. It would matter if you were attacking David or anybody else, you're acting like a spoiled child. If your message was for David and David alone, then you could e-mail him, but I suppose that would involve revealing your identity and then we'd know that you're really just some regular dude typing away on his keyboard with delusions of grandeur. This board doesn't need your veiled threats and snark. You want to dis DP, then write about his work or something that he has written about and have at it, that's what this board is for, not for threats.

Posted by: Noah at August 18, 2007 10:32 AM

David Poland IS Noah

Posted by: whatnokiss at August 18, 2007 01:43 PM

So,
I get this little message from Dave when I try to respond on the blog.

It goes something like this ...
"In an effort to curb malicious comment posting by abusive users, I've enabled a feature that requires a weblog commenter to wait an amount of time before being able to post again."

So!
I guess I been bad a bad boy because Davie just gave me a 'time out'.

Ooooooh ouch daddy, don't hurt me, don't hurt me!!!

Noah ... quit sniveling.

And quit thinking I care about you or what your other "somebodies" on this blog think. I'm not writing for you, I'm writing to the other you - to Dave. You're just a figment of Poland's imagination. His own little avatar...

Get a life Dave/Noah ... besides just making vicious personal attacks on others and hiding behind your alternate universe of blogger groupies for support. Those midgets couldn't defend you in real world...they're all secretly snickering at you behind their computer screens anyway whenever you put your foot in your mouth, no matter how much they seem to support you in blogger speak.

When you attack others (Dave-Noah) you deserve to be attacked. "Treat others as you wish to be treated" little buddy.

But wait!
Oh no! You are the god of this blog, and you can pull my plug whenever you don't like being attacked like you do to others, or you'll allow others to do to others as long as it's not you.

Ridiculing and pushing others down - does not glorify you - nor lift you up. (As in me having to spank doesn't make me any better.) Get a clue.

Get out of the "I wanna be the DrudgeReport of the Movie biz rut" and get out there and do some real journalism or some really fast reporting that will lift you up - no matter what Nikki or I or anyone else says.

Noah?

Posted by: whatnokiss at August 18, 2007 01:45 PM

Okay, I have not said anything personal about you that even comes close to what you are saying about Dave. But, I think in giving you any attention, I'm somehow sating your desires. So I'll refrain from that from now on. I don't care about you and your little quips about me, but if you feel like you have more to say then feel free to e-mail me. But I'm sure that will never happen because you enjoy your anonymity too much. I hope you find something more positive to waste your time on.

Posted by: Noah at August 18, 2007 02:00 PM

wow, this got real retarded, real fast. XL psychos on the prowl...

Posted by: Armin Tamzarian at August 18, 2007 03:58 PM

You're a little crazy, aren't you, Whatnokiss? Paranoia? Schizophrenia? Obsesive projection?

You seem to be having a relationship with me that I am not aware of... is this the return of Spam Dooley?

Posted by: David Poland at August 18, 2007 10:29 PM

hqmeister, you are the reason I wrote this entry. You see to be more than willing to believe, against logic, that this is some simple net profit deal... same old "monkey points."

And that is why Nikki is a problem. She gets a phone call from some other agent trying to embarass Gold/Miller and runs it with utter spin and few actual facts. And you keep spinning from there.

This is the same way the LA Times ended up running stories about an internet boycott of Fox that never happened. Internet Gossip Fever is not good for anyone other than the spin doctor selling it and the gossip printing it.

Posted by: David Poland at August 18, 2007 10:32 PM

David: Just ignore the crazies. It only makes them crazier.

Posted by: Joe Leydon at August 18, 2007 11:41 PM

Thank you, Joe.

Posted by: David Poland at August 19, 2007 12:04 AM

Joe, I'm so thankful that I read your archived play by play of all the Halloween films. It saved me the time and frustration of having to rewatch them all before Rob Zombie's remake, since your blog post reminded me of all the awfulness that I had blocked out in the years since I'd seen them all. So, thanks for posting that link on another thread!

Posted by: Noah at August 19, 2007 12:19 AM

Well, since we're expressing thanks this evening, let me thank David for posting the Movie City News link to the NYT story on Horton Foote. I have had my own encounters with this gracious gentleman, for which I am grateful.
http://movingpictureblog.blogspot.com/2006/09/sunday-viewing-tip.html

Posted by: Joe Leydon at August 19, 2007 12:45 AM

We already know that Spam Dooley thinks that Nikki Finke is unprofessional and conniving based on her Michael Bay story...so probably not.

Posted by: jeffmcm at August 19, 2007 01:12 AM

The Hot Blog

August 16, 2007

More Nikki Trouble

Comments

Post a comment