|
Community Links |
Social Groups |
Pictures & Albums |
Members List |
Search Forums |
Advanced Search |
Go to Page... |
|
Thread Tools |
11-01-2009, 11:05 PM | #1031 |
Iron Grenadier
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Portland, Or
Posts: 720
|
I agree that the marketing costs reported are insane, but this is Hollywood we are talking about I can name several projects that were greenlit even though everyone involved in said projects knew that they would never make a profit and would be losses (think pretty much any anti-war film during the last bush presidency)
Hollywood is it's own entity as far as budget and marketing, I personally think that marketing budget is an accounting trick of some kind to artificially inflate the cost of the production for accounting purposes. But be that as it may, it was the reported costs... so on paper, the film has yet to make a reported profit. A fact which may not be accurate except for accounting B$. |
11-01-2009, 11:08 PM | #1032 |
ChaplainAsst
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Coastal Georgia
Posts: 4,910
|
Look, go back and read about the Lord of the Rings trilogy and the Peter Jackson lawsuit (and many subsequent lawsuits from others). These movies were very successful ... yet, according to the studio (New Line?), they did not make a profit. Or, perhaps more accurately, they hid their profit in odd ways so that Jackson would not receive as much on the back end. The lawsuit was about exposing how Hollywood never wants to show a movie making a profit so they can reduce the payments on the back end. Of course, the suit was settled out of court.
All that is to say this: if you believed Hollywood, no movie ever makes a profit. But if that were true, how could they make movies for this long without being subsidized?
__________________
My feedback: http://www.hisstank.com/forum/buy-se...plainasst.html |
11-01-2009, 11:11 PM | #1033 |
Iron Grenadier
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Portland, Or
Posts: 720
|
Quote:
Look, go back and read about the Lord of the Rings trilogy and the Peter Jackson lawsuit (and many subsequent lawsuits from others). These movies were very successful ... yet, according to the studio (New Line?), they did not make a profit. Or, perhaps more accurately, they hid their profit in odd ways so that Jackson would not receive as much on the back end. The lawsuit was about exposing how Hollywood never wants to show a movie making a profit so they can reduce the payments on the back end. Of course, the suit was settled out of court.
All that is to say this: if you believed Hollywood, no movie ever makes a profit. But if that were true, how could they make movies for this long without being subsidized? I cited this many many moons ago.... I am pretty sure that Hollywood does not use GAAP (Generally accepted Accounting Principles) in it's publicly recorded books. |
11-01-2009, 11:12 PM | #1034 |
Iron Grenadier
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fredericksburg VA
Posts: 909
|
So true So true. Hollywood numbers are so different from everyone elses.
__________________
"The officer is always the first one out the door. Because to inspire your men, follow your instincts and lead you must be with them. Where the metal meets the meat" (Hal Moore LT General retired) |
11-01-2009, 11:15 PM | #1035 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: On break
Posts: 4,659
|
Quote:
What supports my statement is how little money those movies make.
The ones that have a reported budget listed are the easy ones to rate I agree. Mind you most studios only report their budget if they are pretty sure they will/can make a profit or someone leaks it out, cause in Hollywood making a movie that is a known huge loss can cost you your job fast. However look at all the ones without one posted and then look how little money most of them have made. Granted little money is a lose term. Its a lot on a personal level. I would kill to make a million in 10 years myself mind you. But for a movie a 1 million dollar month is bad. As most movies are only in theaters for one month or less. Its impossible to get all the numbers, I know this from the years I tried before. You do have to do as much fishing as possible and extrapulate as best you can. But it does not take a math wiz to see with all those movies made in a given year how few make a lot of money. The numbers I can post are there and they are open to personal interupitation. I see those numbers and I see few and far between money makers and lots of poor poor showings. |
11-01-2009, 11:29 PM | #1036 |
Iron Grenadier
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Portland, Or
Posts: 720
|
Again this is Hollywood where sometimes up is down and always Left is always right!
I think the proof is gonna be in the pudding if a sequel materializes beyond the pre-planning stage then the film made a decent profit. |
11-01-2009, 11:31 PM | #1037 |
Iron Grenadier
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Portland, Or
Posts: 720
|
Also Rocky remember studios want movies to shjow losses as they are taxed on the profits that they make, I am virtually certain in RoC's case that is why the marketing budget is so crazy! They may have just decided to take their profits early in a creative fashion!
|
11-01-2009, 11:32 PM | #1038 |
Iron Grenadier
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fredericksburg VA
Posts: 909
|
Quote:
I agree that its shady at best in the way they track movies but come on do you really belive that Hollywood is not making a profit off of these films? You seem like a bright guy so I dont belive that you think that 5% of films make money leaving the other 95% in the red! No way, no how. Now if you are saying that their profits are very low....... YES, I agree. So a film that takes 300 million to make and only brings in 301 million....... not very profitable - but still a profit!
Again if you go back to my first post on the subject, which started our debate. I was stating on the percentage of movies that make a profit in theaters alone. Of those movies that do, only 5% to 10% rate a strong thought on a sequel. That was my point, not that only 5% to 10% of all movies make a profit. If that was how my post read to you I need to be more clear then. Now movies that make a big profit in theaters alone, yea we know they will rate a sequel but those are few and far between maybe three to five a year tops.
__________________
"The officer is always the first one out the door. Because to inspire your men, follow your instincts and lead you must be with them. Where the metal meets the meat" (Hal Moore LT General retired) |
11-01-2009, 11:35 PM | #1039 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: On break
Posts: 4,659
|
Well then I stand corrected...... I don't recall that being the case but I am too tired to look back and what the hell I believe you...LOL. You know what I don't recall asking you.....
Did you like ROC? |
11-01-2009, 11:40 PM | #1040 |
ChaplainAsst
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Coastal Georgia
Posts: 4,910
|
Worst case scenario: Paramount stalls on the sequel, leaving it in "development" to prevent Hasbro from moving the movie to another studio. Hasbro will be desperate to get a sequel out because without another movie, the RoC won't garner new fans nor be self-sustainable. Paramount can say that RoC was "unprofitable" and negotiate a larger percentage of toy sales or a guarantee of a profit. But I believe completely a sequel will be made.
__________________
My feedback: http://www.hisstank.com/forum/buy-se...plainasst.html |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What's your favorite theatrical Transformers movie? | Jonathan | Movies DVD Television | 47 | 06-29-2011 03:28 AM |
Toy Sales Down 2% Overall, Action Figure Sales Up 13% | TOYARK.COM | Toys | 2 | 08-18-2009 04:41 PM |
For trade/sale ROC double sided theatrical posters | MachineGunEtiquette | G.I. Joe Buy Sell Trade | 5 | 07-22-2009 09:14 AM |
Check out this Resolute/ROC theatrical trailer mashup | Flint5150 | G.I. Joe Animation Discussion | 5 | 05-20-2009 06:21 AM |
Check out this Resolute/ROC theatrical trailer mashup | Flint5150 | G.I. Joe Live Action Movie | 0 | 05-18-2009 09:07 AM |
|
|