Analysis-Paramount pledges to release 30 films a year. How will that add up?

Paramount Skydance, the media conglomerate formed from the merger of Paramount Pictures and Skydance Media, has vowed to release a record-breaking 30 films annually, a significant increase from the 28 movies the two companies were expected to release this year. This pledge comes amidst a broader aim to save up to $6 billion, a requirement set forth in a recent legal settlement between Paramount and California and other states.

The settlement mandates that the combined company must distribute a minimum of 30 films per year for the first two years, and a minimum of 32 films per year for each of the subsequent three years. This is a notable departure from the typical Hollywood release cycle, which typically sees around 28 films per year. The last time a single company released 30 movies nationwide was in 2007, a time when films were both more profitable and less expensive.

The decision to release a larger number of films could have significant financial implications. Paolo Pescatore, an analyst at PP Foresight, points out that the economics of the film slate could be just as important as the headline number. "Protecting the number of films does not protect the money spent making them," he warns. The industry has been grappling with shrinking audiences due to the rise of streaming and social media, leading to a decline in production in Los Angeles and subsequent job losses.

The settlement also requires that at least 20% of the yearly slate must be blockbusters with production budgets of at least $50 million each. This is a relatively low threshold compared to recent studio tentpoles, which can cost over $200 million to produce. The company will also have to spend an additional $1.5 billion on US film and television production over five years, a $300 million increase from the 2025 baseline.

The settlement also includes measures to prevent Paramount from using low-budget or AI-generated productions to satisfy the commitments. Violations could result in a $30 million penalty per missed film, much of which would go to Hollywood labor unions for retirement and healthcare benefits. The agreement also mandates spending on marketing consistent with typical practice for similar films, with marketing costs for big-budget releases ranging from $100 million to $200 million per film.

The settlement terms do not inherently alter the structural issues that led to antitrust concerns. While a higher volume of films might seem beneficial, it does not necessarily mean lower costs. As Ken Mahoney, CEO of Mahoney Asset Management, points out, lower budgets do not necessarily mean lower quality. In fact, recent, relatively inexpensive horror and thriller films have become commercial hits, offering emerging filmmakers a path to larger projects.

This could be a strategy the big studios could adopt, potentially collaborating with these up-and-coming directors on lower-budget productions to increase the number of films released.