Films are, in general, tricky enterprises to undertake. Statistically speaking, most of them lose money. At best they are difficult and precarious investments. The recent performance of Paramount Picture's major film properties during this blockbuster season (May through August) epitomize this sad fact.
Let's start with Ben-Hur, which opened on August 19 and has a budget of $100 million (more if you consider marketing costs). The sand and scale epic--a genre relaunched into mainstream popularity once again by Ridley Scott's Gladiator (2000)--has proven to be one of Hollywood's toughest to emulate, in no small part due to its rapid decline. Audiences don't want to see anything relating to the Ancient Greeks or Romans anymore. They don't sell. Ben-Hur, set in the time of Christ and during the Roman occupation of Judea, has raked in only $22 million in domestic markets--a massive flop by any judgement. Perhaps its failure was even predictable considering the sour mood for sequels and remakes that has only fermented in a fickle demographic: the movie-going public.
While boredom with the genre itself contributed to the film's severe underperformance, it was not aided by the confusion over what it actually was. It has been branded as a re-adaptation or reimagining or new interpretation of the original 1890 novel, and not in anyway a reboot of the famous 1959 film (lauded as one of the greatest epics put to film) or of the three additional ones that have existed. That hasn't stopped critics from highlighting its relative inferiority, partly turning prospective viewers away from seeing the film. David Sims, writing for The Atlantic, called the film, "Hollywood's Epic $100M Mistake." Overall its chances at recouping its losses are minimal and therefore unlikely.
Paramount's failure with Ben-Hur is a sad bookend to an even sadder slate of money-making ventures that have nearly all fallen short for the studio. At best, the mild performance of Star Trek: Beyond (a budget of $185 million which has grossed $231 million, and a far better film critically) hasn't lifted spirits at the studio. Even though it hasn't yet opened in China, it is unlikely to earn a profit to justify the studio's investment. The fact that it is a franchise film no doubt heightened expectations for the studio executives and makes the disappointment only harder to bear.
The problem with commercial filmmaking is the massive resources it drains. A primary one being time. (For instance, the production of Star Trek and Ben-Hur roughly began in 2013 and 2014 respectively.) This means that studios constantly need to plan for the future. They need to always stay one step ahead of both themselves and their competitors to secure a reliable niche of the movie-going public. Instead, Paramount Pictures has been constantly tripping and stumbling, offering viewers a slew of diverse but poorly handled properties. It seems to ironically lack direction.
Michael Nathanson, a media analyst, has predicted that the combined failure has amounted to a loss of $360 million; furthermore, next year the studio is looking at a loss of nearly $200 million. The rapid pace and competition of the entertainment industry only deepens the loss. In fact the only bright spot for Paramount appears to be Michael Bay's fifth film in his Transformers franchise (Transformers: The Last Knight) set to arrive in the early blockbuster days of May 2017. Nearly all of the previous four grossed over a billion dollars worldwide. It looks to provide a welcome respite for the struggling studio.
Perhaps Paramount's recent performance failure is indicative of a larger illness slowly eating away at Hollywood, one characterized by a reliance on film franchises (especially those that are not based on comic-books), overpriced budgets and marketing, and to a great and unfixable extent, poor filmmaking. Viacom (NASDAQ: VIAB), the parent company for Paramount Pictures, has been trying to sell a 49% share in the studio--a sale that will look more and more unappealing to buyers if these slate of financial failures continue.