re: Spielberg, Lucas predict "implosion" of film industry

How Hollywood Accounting Can Make a $450 Million Movie 'Unprofitable'




anyone still feel bad about pirating? i sure as shite don't

quote:

---

quote:

---

What exactly is the advantage of showing an actually succesful movie (like the Harry Potter used as an example) in a way that makes it seem like it is taking a loss?

---

reducing tax liability

---

and making it so that they don't have to pay participants any cut of the profit they may have negotiated for.

for instance, David Prowse (Darth Vader) gets nothing because Return of the Jedi has never really made a profit, according to the studio
LucasFilm Tells Darth Vader that Return of the Jedi Hasn’t Made a Profit!?

quote:

---

will be price variances at movie theaters, where "you're gonna have to pay $25 for the next Iron Man, you're probably only going to have to pay $7 to see Lincoln.

---

I'd also like to add... This would never work without some other value piece added in. Whether it is something digital, physical, or just intentional.

It is odd that people will pay far over $25 to see a play or musical, but screens would never work at that level without serious shifts in industry.

Or at least, including a 5-watch digital download with every ticket.

quote:

---

It is odd that people will pay far over $25 to see a play or musical

---

Are we seeing the movie acted out in front of us live? No. If they let people come to the set to watch they could charge those prices.

quote:

---

dude, you are so full of shite

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?

---

you really arent talking about the same thing as I am.

I am not talking about what they "say" they made with accounting junk meant for taxes and such. I couldn't care less about that shite.

I am talking about what is really made and it usually takes doubling your budget to make real profit.

Look if you are looking for a deep plot with strong character development, then you don't need to be going to the movie theater for it. That's what television is for and there are a couple dozen tv shows that have great stories with great characters, and so on.

Movies are for an escape. For me - and I imagine for most people - when I drop that $10 or whatever for a ticket, I want to see something I don't get to see Sunday through Thursday night. I have Game of Thrones and Boardwalk Empire for a deep plot, great dialogue, and strong character development. You know what they don't have? Big action spectacles. The action scenes in The Avengers were amazing. I'm an adult and those scenes reminded me of when I was going through puberty and saw my first set of big bare tits on a woman.

I'm not saying that I don't want a movie to make sense. It has to make sense within itself. For instance, Men in Black 3 had some humor and some nice action, but frick me running those plotholes took a lot away from the movie. From what I've heard from non-idiots, Man of Steel has a tight, focused story with no plot holes. Is the plot the greatest story ever told? No. Does it click and make sense? Yes. That's all I need.

I find it funny that Spielberg and Lucas are bitching about big blockbusters ruining Hollywood when neither was relevant until they got into big blockbusters. And don't give me that bullshite about how you can't make a big blockbuster movie and still have artistic integrity. James Cameron and Peter Jackson laugh at that assertion.

Spielberg doesn't want to break out his comfort zone (Almost every movie he does involves either war, aliens, or both) and Lucas has no one to blame but himself for his backlash.

quote:

---

go read and get angry. feel free to google around for even more detailed articles that will get your blood boiling

---

that wasn't really the point of my example and i really couldn't care less about their accounting procedures. If I think something costs to much, I don't buy.

quote:

---

It is odd that people will pay far over $25 to see a play or musical, but screens would never work at that level without serious shifts in industry.

---

It's a little different though IMO. You have different casts (and quality) performing depending on the location of where you're seeing the play. And by majority, when you're spending that kind of money you're getting quality.

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.

---

Damn. I wonder how many tens of millions of dollars they had to pay their in-house accounting department to put these numbers together?