Question about numbers and gross numbers
- Thread starter SplinterX
- Start date
PROFIT equals REVENUE minus EXPENSES
P = R - E
P = $400m Box Office - ($200m Production Expense + Prints & Advertising)
Typically a film spends anywhere from 3/4 to 5/4 of the production budget for P&A.
Generally speaking, for the information provided, the film broke even FOR THE STUDIO.
Everyone in the film got paid (something).
Everyone who made prints gets paid.
Theater owners get paid.
Distributor got... mostly paid.
Studio... didn't make much off of this scenario.
P = R - E
P = $400m Box Office - ($200m Production Expense + Prints & Advertising)
Typically a film spends anywhere from 3/4 to 5/4 of the production budget for P&A.
Generally speaking, for the information provided, the film broke even FOR THE STUDIO.
Everyone in the film got paid (something).
Everyone who made prints gets paid.
Theater owners get paid.
Distributor got... mostly paid.
Studio... didn't make much off of this scenario.
So, a movie like Batman Begins didn´t really make money for the studio, right?
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=batmanbegins.htm
Looks like it did okay. And of course, that's just theatrically, some movies do better on the home market, and I know Batman did pretty well (those numbers are sometimes tough to come by though)
Looks like it did okay. And of course, that's just theatrically, some movies do better on the home market, and I know Batman did pretty well (those numbers are sometimes tough to come by though)
No, not a lot.
However, there's additional revenue from licensing for dollar theaters, toy and Halloween costumes et al merchandising, DVD sales, cable/satellite on demand, and broadcast TV rights.
But even then... meh.
There is a difference between making money for the studio and
all the people involved and not making a profit. Some call this
creative accounting or cooking the books (or worse) but it’s just
good business - and it’s legal and it’s the right thing to do. Part
of the production cost is studio overhead, facility fees and rentals
- the stages, dressing rooms, offices, etc. That’s where the studio
makes money. Then each investor makes their money back plus
a small percentage, then contracted percentages are paid out
and all fees are paid. Then money is made from all the ancillary
outlets.
So while the film may not show a profit it makes money for all
involved once it hits a certain level. Using your $200 million in
production expenses and only $400 million in gross returns, that
movie is still in the red.
Accounting on any product that large is extremely complex and
despite what so many people believe, it’s legal and it’s good business.
all the people involved and not making a profit. Some call this
creative accounting or cooking the books (or worse) but it’s just
good business - and it’s legal and it’s the right thing to do. Part
of the production cost is studio overhead, facility fees and rentals
- the stages, dressing rooms, offices, etc. That’s where the studio
makes money. Then each investor makes their money back plus
a small percentage, then contracted percentages are paid out
and all fees are paid. Then money is made from all the ancillary
outlets.
So while the film may not show a profit it makes money for all
involved once it hits a certain level. Using your $200 million in
production expenses and only $400 million in gross returns, that
movie is still in the red.
Accounting on any product that large is extremely complex and
despite what so many people believe, it’s legal and it’s good business.
Directorik - Are you are saying that it is okay that there are numerous instances where producers or distributors have cooked the books to avoid paying back-end compensation to those entitled to it? This even goes as far as the studios. Additionally, this is also why filmmakers rarely see a profit with traditional distribution.
What you are defending is outrageous and people are now taking a stance against it.
Techdirt.com - "Now, that's all fascinating from a general business perspective, but now it appears that Hollywood Accounting is coming under attack in the courtroom... and losing. Not surprisingly, your average juror is having trouble coming to grips with the idea that a movie or television show can bring in hundreds of millions and still "lose" money. This week, the big case involved a TV show, rather than a movie, with the famed gameshow Who Wants To Be A Millionaire suddenly becoming "Who Wants To Hide Millions In Profits." A jury found the whole "Hollywood Accounting" discussion preposterous and awarded Celador $270 million in damages from Disney, after the jury believed that Disney used these kinds of tricks to cook the books and avoid having to pay Celador over the gameshow, as per their agreement.
On the same day, actor Don Johnson won a similar lawsuit in a battle over profits from the TV show Nash Bridges, and a jury awarded him $23 million from the show's producer. Once again, the jury was not at all impressed by Hollywood Accounting.
With these lawsuits exposing Hollywood's sneakier accounting tricks, and finding them not very convincing, a number of Hollywood studios may face a glut of upcoming lawsuits over similar deals on properties that "lost" money while making millions. It's why many of the studios are pretty worried about the rulings. Of course, these recent rulings will be appealed, and a jury ruling might not really mean much in the long run. Still, for now, it's a fun glimpse into yet another way that Hollywood lies with numbers to avoid paying people what they owe (while at the same sanctimoniously insisting in the press and to politicians that they're all about getting content creators paid what they're due)."
Another one recently (about 8 hours ago this was posted) -
Kevin Costner sues studio for hiding money from him: http://entertainment.nbcnews.com/_n...s-studio-for-hiding-robin-hood-money-from-him
What you are defending is outrageous and people are now taking a stance against it.
Techdirt.com - "Now, that's all fascinating from a general business perspective, but now it appears that Hollywood Accounting is coming under attack in the courtroom... and losing. Not surprisingly, your average juror is having trouble coming to grips with the idea that a movie or television show can bring in hundreds of millions and still "lose" money. This week, the big case involved a TV show, rather than a movie, with the famed gameshow Who Wants To Be A Millionaire suddenly becoming "Who Wants To Hide Millions In Profits." A jury found the whole "Hollywood Accounting" discussion preposterous and awarded Celador $270 million in damages from Disney, after the jury believed that Disney used these kinds of tricks to cook the books and avoid having to pay Celador over the gameshow, as per their agreement.
On the same day, actor Don Johnson won a similar lawsuit in a battle over profits from the TV show Nash Bridges, and a jury awarded him $23 million from the show's producer. Once again, the jury was not at all impressed by Hollywood Accounting.
With these lawsuits exposing Hollywood's sneakier accounting tricks, and finding them not very convincing, a number of Hollywood studios may face a glut of upcoming lawsuits over similar deals on properties that "lost" money while making millions. It's why many of the studios are pretty worried about the rulings. Of course, these recent rulings will be appealed, and a jury ruling might not really mean much in the long run. Still, for now, it's a fun glimpse into yet another way that Hollywood lies with numbers to avoid paying people what they owe (while at the same sanctimoniously insisting in the press and to politicians that they're all about getting content creators paid what they're due)."
Another one recently (about 8 hours ago this was posted) -
Kevin Costner sues studio for hiding money from him: http://entertainment.nbcnews.com/_n...s-studio-for-hiding-robin-hood-money-from-him