- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Spielberg, Lucas predict "implosion" of film industry
Posted on 6/13/13 at 2:21 pm to H-Town Tiger
Posted on 6/13/13 at 2:21 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
I was talking in terms profit margin and using simple math as an example, I don't know the details of the movie industry so i was assuming 15M in profit vs 100M in profot, but a PM of 100% to 67%. Most people would say a movie that made $100M was more successful because it made more in total.
I see.
just remember when calculating how much a movie is actually profiting from that it needs to double the budget before you start to make money. It can be a little different for each movie but doubling your budget to earn profit is about average.
for example, John Carter cost $250 million to make. It made $280 million worldwide. Once you add in advertising costs, distribution fees, splits with theaters etc, it becomes a big loser.
This post was edited on 6/13/13 at 2:24 pm
0
Posted on 6/13/13 at 2:24 pm to Dr RC
quote:
Smaller movies and studios get absolutely wiped out by pirating.
good.
maybe that will help the idiots in charge learn to adapt to the marketplace
Posted on 6/13/13 at 2:25 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
I don't know the details of the movie industry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
go read and get angry. feel free to google around for even more detailed articles that will get your blood boiling
Posted on 6/13/13 at 2:27 pm to Pilot Tiger
quote:
did it really??
I know Depp gets a huge upfront plus backend pays (this killed one of his projects because he accounted for 1/2 of the film's budget). The special effects also ballooned the budget when there should be little SFX for a western.
Posted on 6/13/13 at 2:33 pm to WikiTiger
accounting practices that are usually used for tax breaks and to avoid extra payments to actors and writers are quite a bit different than if a movie actually makes money or not.
again, just go with the take doubling the budget = profit. it works 95% of the time.
again, just go with the take doubling the budget = profit. it works 95% of the time.
This post was edited on 6/13/13 at 2:34 pm
Posted on 6/13/13 at 2:38 pm to Dr RC
quote:
just go with the take doubling the budget = profit. it works 95% of the time.
do you not understand how retarded that sounds? seriously.
in other words, it that's true all it means is that they don't accurately report the "budget"
if something costs $10 then making $10.01 is technically a profit.
excluding real costs, like advertising, only contributes to the shell game that they play.
your industry is one shady fricking industry. that's the reality of it.
and frick your industry. it sucks and needs to die so that it can be rebuilt into something that is reasonable.
Posted on 6/13/13 at 2:41 pm to Augustus
It's ironic because Spielberg and Lucas started the trend of overinflated film budgets
Posted on 6/13/13 at 2:42 pm to ColaTiger
quote:
It's ironic because Spielberg and Lucas started the trend of overinflated film budgets
It really is. Kind of poetic that they're now having to openly bitch about it too.
Posted on 6/13/13 at 2:47 pm to WikiTiger
quote:
. it sucks and needs to die so that it can be rebuilt into something that is reasonable.
Are you Ra's Al Ghul?
Posted on 6/13/13 at 2:48 pm to Pilot Tiger
quote:
I'm tired of Johnny Depp playing Jack Sparrow/Willy Wonka/etc.
it's all the same to me
Goddamit his act is so played out. As soon as I saw that Lone Ranger trailer I was annoyed. Same old sorry arse retread.
Posted on 6/13/13 at 2:57 pm to tigerpimpbot
quote:yea, I cant remember which movie it was for me when I was like, ok seriously.
Goddamit his act is so played out. As soon as I saw that Lone Ranger trailer I was annoyed. Same old sorry arse retread
I think it was Alice in Wonderland.
That's after he'd done Jack Sparrow 3 times, Willy Wonka, and Sweeney Todd. It was old then
Then he pumps out ANOTHER Jack Sparrow AND Dark Shadows.
WHEN WILL IT END?????
Posted on 6/13/13 at 2:57 pm to WikiTiger
quote:
do you not understand how retarded that sounds? seriously.
you do realize that all of the money made by movies doesn't go straight to the studios don't you?
There are distribution fees, money that goes to theaters etc.
a movie that makes $10 over the budget is not really making a profit for the studio at all.
quote:
and frick your industry. it sucks and needs to die so that it can be rebuilt into something that is reasonable.
then GTFO and stop watching movies and TV. You aren't entitled to cheap entertainment.This post was edited on 6/13/13 at 3:00 pm
Posted on 6/13/13 at 3:01 pm to Dr RC
quote:based on what evidence?
again, charging $25 for a movie in theaters will just drive more people to pirate or wait until video.
And what evidence do you have that even if pirating increased, it would be enough that the 25 dollars wouldn't cover it?
it sounds like you're using a similar argument the recording industry used and it turned out to be complete bullshite.
Posted on 6/13/13 at 3:05 pm to Dr RC
quote:
You aren't entitled to cheap entertainment.
And studios aren't "entitled" to gouging the hell out of it's customers over shite product just because they can't figure out how to properly budget a movie to maximize profits.
I'd consider myself a pretty casual movie-goer, probably what you would consider the majority of the makeup of who is going to the movies. And if it gets bumped to $25 a movie, I'll wait until it comes out on DVD or until I can stream it.
Posted on 6/13/13 at 3:05 pm to CocomoLSU
quote:
So often they lie and cook the books so much in order to keep as much money in their pockets a possible. At best, it's shady as frick. At worst, it's straight up illegal.
Good luck getting them investigated during this admin.
Posted on 6/13/13 at 3:05 pm to Dr RC
quote:dude, you are so full of shite
you do realize that all of the money made by movies doesn't go straight to the studios don't you? There are distribution fees, money that goes to theaters etc. a movie that makes $10 over the budget is not really making a profit for the studio at all
please explain to me why I should believe the studio when they say My Big Fat Greek Wedding lost 20 million dollars, when it made $350mm at the box office?
ahhhh it cost 200mm to distribute?
Posted on 6/13/13 at 3:13 pm to Pilot Tiger
quote:
ahhhh it cost 200mm to distribute?
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100708/02510310122.shtml
good article on hollywood accounting with a real world example:
quote:
For example, a bunch of you sent in the example of how Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, under "Hollywood accounting," ended up with a $167 million "loss," despite taking in $938 million in revenue. This isn't new or surprising, but it's getting attention because the income statement for the movie was leaked online, showing just how Warner Bros. pulled off the accounting trick:
quote:
In that statement, you'll notice the "distribution fee" of $212 million dollars. That's basically Warner Bros. paying itself to make sure the movie "loses money." There are some other fun tidbits in there as well. The $130 million in "advertising and publicity"? Again, much of that is actually Warner Bros. paying itself (or paying its own "properties"). $57 million in "interest"? Also to itself for "financing" the film. Even if we assume that only half of the "advertising and publicity" money is Warner Bros. paying itself, we're still talking about $350 million that Warner Bros. shifts around, which get taken out of the "bottom line" in the movie accounting.
Warner Brothers just called you dumb, Pilot.
Posted on 6/13/13 at 3:17 pm to WikiTiger
if this doesn't prove that the Jews really do run Hollywood I don't know what will
Posted on 6/13/13 at 3:20 pm to WikiTiger
quote:
In that statement, you'll notice the "distribution fee" of $212 million dollars. That's basically Warner Bros. paying itself to make sure the movie "loses money." There are some other fun tidbits in there as well. The $130 million in "advertising and publicity"? Again, much of that is actually Warner Bros. paying itself (or paying its own "properties"). $57 million in "interest"? Also to itself for "financing" the film. Even if we assume that only half of the "advertising and publicity" money is Warner Bros. paying itself, we're still talking about $350 million that Warner Bros. shifts around, which get taken out of the "bottom line" in the movie accounting.
What a wonderful example.
So Warner Bros. Putting a Warner Bros. trailer in front of a Warner Bros. movie costs Warner Bros. money? Glorious.
This post was edited on 6/13/13 at 3:25 pm
Posted on 6/13/13 at 3:21 pm to Freauxzen
quote:don't forget the Loan Shark subdivision of Warner Bros charging itself 24% interest for financing the film
What a wonderful example. So Warner Bros. Putting a Warner Bros. trailer in front of a Warner Bros. movie costs them money? Glorious.
I wonder if anyone got there thumbs broken???
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News