What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Do you believe the 2012 Mayan Prophecy? view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - The Mayan Calendar predicts the end of time: 2012. See the trailer for 2012, opening November 13.
405 Comments
- CivicTV, on 08/14/2009, -4/+540This isn't the money you are looking for . . .
- robdiggity, on 04/07/2009, -3/+484Lucas: I have altered the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.
Prowse: This deal is getting worse all the time! - Iggins, on 04/07/2009, -4/+367"We can put that check in a money market mutual fund. Then, we'll reinvest the earnings into foreign currency accounts with compounding interest aaand it's gone."
- Qeveren, on 04/07/2009, -2/+234It's called "Hollywood Accounting", and they do it all the time to get out of paying people. They'll shuffle the money through various subsidiaries as 'costs', reducing the on-paper profits to zero.
- CrankMyBlueSax, on 04/07/2009, -6/+212I blame the ***** Ewoks.
- trer, on 04/07/2009, -1/+196Good ol' "Hollywood Accounting". They did the same thing to Winston Groom after they made Forrest Gump based on his book. That movie was very successful, yet for some reason it "didn't make a profit." That's why when Winston Groom wrote a sequel to Forrest Gump, he refused to let Hollywood adopt it, seeing as how he got shafted the first time.
- inactive, on 04/07/2009, -8/+173According to Wikipedia:
Budget: $32,500,000
Worldwide gross: $475 million (presumably that's just theater money)
So no, not true at all. But maybe the issue is actually more complicate than just whether or not they made a profit, I don't know. - IvanB, on 04/07/2009, -18/+157"because LucasFilm claims the film hasn’t made a profit ."
Interesting, is this actually true? - Zelf24, on 04/07/2009, -0/+127Don't pirate music / movies! If someone is going to screw over our artists and actors, it will be us!
Yay hypocrisy!
-Your friends at the RIAA / MPAA - GoingPostal, on 04/07/2009, -3/+121What do you expect from a man who would rape Indiana Jones.
- 9mmCensor, on 04/07/2009, -4/+121http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
The unfortunate reality of making a business out of the art of motion pictures. - BattleChimp, on 04/07/2009, -7/+118meeza no tink dats fair
- Hercules, on 04/07/2009, -4/+115I will not buy a Star Wars DVD just because of George Lucas.
I liked Episodes III, IV, and V, but not enough to let go of my principles on him being a douche and ruining every film in the name of profit. The line was drawn at the re-re-re-release of Star Wars. Oh, and Jar Jar. - trer, on 04/07/2009, -3/+113The real creative people in Hollywood are the accountants and the lawyers, not the actors or directors.
- satori3000, on 04/07/2009, -1/+110In the article it says that the declared expenses were $539.5 million so no, it didn't make a profit. The issue isn't whether it made a profit on paper, the point is that it did. Hollywood has all these creative accountants that do this and make it appear that the movies aren't profitable for various reasons. Usually taxation is at the core of it so they can can declare loses, but also so that they don't have to pay residuals. It's disgusting and underhanded but it happens all the time. Tolkein's estate hasn't seen a penny in residuals as the LOTR movies haven't made a profit on paper yet either.
- DijitalJB, on 04/07/2009, -3/+107In the comments at the bottom:
"I find your lack of pay disturbing." - wicketr, on 04/07/2009, -2/+104And Hollywood has the gall to be mad at people downloading their movies off the interwebs. They are backstabbing and essentially stealing the money earned on these movies from the people that worked hard to make them.
And we're supposed to feel sorry for these studios? - inactive, on 04/07/2009, -7/+109What the hell does this have to do with Obama?
I'd say it's more like a typical employer to stiff the employees - it has nothing to do with politics. - fearlessfx, on 04/07/2009, -1/+75Would have been better with a quote along the lines of, "I find my lack of residuals disturbing.".
- flaterates, on 04/07/2009, -4/+75All the more reason to download movies from a bittorrent site. You're not hurting the small guys, you hurt the guys who hurt the small guys.
- tacotacotaco, on 04/07/2009, -1/+62Please remember this story next you hear about the MPAA or RIAA (the music industry does the same kind of "accounting") say they 're collecting money and looking out for the interest of the artists. The music and film industry have /never/ had the well-being of artists in mind. Even if you think file-sharing is illegal, remember that the film and music industry has been stealing from artists for decades - in accounting shenanigans very similar to what's described here. The music/film industries have absolutely /no/ moral standing to accuse others of theft when theft and deceit has been what their business model is based upon. It's laughable the MPAA tries to take the moral high ground about file-sharing but in a case like this, when there's blatant deceit, all one hears from the film industry is.... :crickets:
- WEIL3R, on 04/07/2009, -11/+69I appreciate the irony of Lucas playing Vader in this dialogue exchange, despite Prowse being the actual Vader (sans voice).
- Nogger, on 04/07/2009, -0/+56http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
- seanstuart, on 04/07/2009, -3/+57In other words, Qeveren, they launder the money. *****. Just like the music business.
- diggaddictive, on 04/07/2009, -2/+54http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWaLxFIVX1s&fea ...
- cybershoplifter, on 04/07/2009, -5/+56Darth Vader: "I will have the penne all'arrabiata."
Canteen Worker: "You'll need a tray."
DV: "Do you know who I am?"
CW: "Do you know who I am?"
DV: "This is not a game of who the f*ck are you. For I am Vader, Darth Vader, Lord Vader. I can kill you with a single thought." - moberry, on 04/07/2009, -6/+56I dug you down just so i could digg you twice.
- tacotacotaco, on 04/07/2009, -0/+50There's a New Yorker cartoon with two hollywood types negotiating over a desk. The caption reads "I'll give you 99% of the profits or 1% of the gross."
Everyone in the industry knows to go with the gross, because Hollywood profits are always ephemeral. - Dumbledorito, on 04/07/2009, -0/+48This is why you want a cut of the gross, not the net.
Also, it's important to make sure that, in the contract, percentages come out of actual numbers, not fractions of other percentages or totals that can be arbitrarily determined. Concrete numbers are your friend.
I've also heard from many people in H-town, and it's a strange thing (though I'm sure it happens in every business): Almost everyone in a position to do this kind of fiscal douchebaggery has been screwed over in the past. Yet, rather than not passing that sort of distasteful practice along, they decide to do it to those below them in spite of the resentment they still feel over being taken advantage of. It's a corporate version of the abused child syndrome, I guess. - frostbyt, on 04/07/2009, -4/+49George Lucas is a chinless/soulless bastard.
- WilliamAdama, on 04/07/2009, -2/+46George Lucas I never knew you were such a bastard.
- TigerStar337, on 04/07/2009, -0/+39In a movie contract, a person wants a cut of gross sales...not profit. In movie accounting, big films don't make profit because they use the movie to pay for the movies that crashed and burned.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 04/07/2009, -0/+38“Unfortunately, Mr. Prowse relates what is almost universally the case with a net profit clause. Studios almost never pay on this clause, as they claim nearly any and every expense possible to keep the film from showing any actual profit. Very few films have ever shown a net profit on the books.”
Ever see the movie "The Producers"? lols. - Dare978Devil, on 04/07/2009, -0/+38Hi, yes this is true. If you want to read how Hollywood does it, it is all detailed in a book called "The Big Picture". It is actually quite simple. California accounting laws allow studios to pretend any and every expense was incurred and claimed against the production cost of a movie. In Jedi's case, they have been claiming all of their execs ridiculous salaries as expenses for the last 25 years. Just as the article suggests, this creative accounting is legal but is intended to screw the actors out of a slice of the pie. Should it be legal to claim an executive's 2008 salary against a film released in 1983? Of course not, but the studio does anyway as they can claim the salary was used to help promote BluRay, DVDs, re-releases, TV promotion, etc. etc. etc.
One of the very few actors to get around this was Schwartzenegger who received 29.25 million up front for T3, as well as a cut of the gross (not net). There is very little wiggle room in such a contract, so the studio has to pay up. Of course, you have to be Arnold to demand such a contract......
Another way they screw actors is by bundling films. Who is to say that Blade Runner was the inspiration to purchase a bundle with Blade Runner and Charlie's Angels 2? The studio simply looks at which films require more % net payments, and then claims the revenue against the other film in the bundle. Studios also sell foreign rights to American movies in blocks, meaning up to 10 movies at once. All revenue can theoretically be attributed to any of the 10 films as they were sold as a single block, so who is to say what made the block worth more? So the studios throw in some B movies which have zero % revenue clauses, claim all revenue against them, and make the blockbusters take a loss. - aphexcoil, on 04/07/2009, -0/+38I've been negotiating contracts for 14 years with the most egotistical people in Fortune 100 companies.
Contracts boil down to three things:
How much
How long (and)
How do I get out.
Also, you know a contract is fair when both parties feel like they've been screwed. - rikwakefield, on 04/07/2009, -3/+40well..... it worked. The movie failed to make a profit, thanks to you. Take a bow.
- TotalHalibut, on 04/07/2009, -5/+41Trust wingnuts to try and make this political.
- rhoonah, on 04/07/2009, -2/+38I think that Lucas has proven over the years that he is all about the money. Milking every last dime from VHS sales before going to DVD really pissed me off. Now claiming that this movie hasn't made a profit, whether it is Hollywood status quo or not is rediculous. He totally butchered the prequels and has ruined one of the greatest franchises in movie history. Oh, he also has toenail fungus ;)
- robertisaar, on 04/07/2009, -3/+38don't you mean episodes IV,V and VI?
and jar-jar always creeped the ***** out of evrybody. - gerrylazlo, on 04/07/2009, -1/+34shh. Don't provoke the crazy person.
Back up slowly, avoiding eye contact. - bringmeupmusic, on 04/07/2009, -23/+56Contracts are contracts, whatever he signed and they stipulated should be the way it goes. This article seems to be missing some details, I can't imagine it is the whole truth.
- ratherred, on 04/07/2009, -2/+35I like to blame an entire species for my problems whenever I get the chance.
- Chahrlie5, on 04/07/2009, -1/+30You never saw the most recent star wars films did you
- cbodall, on 04/07/2009, -0/+27this one's wet and this one's wet and this one is wet
did you dry these in a rainforest? - AndrewDB, on 04/07/2009, -6/+33Dear Mr. Troll:
George Lucas is a republican. He has said so and said he voted for George W. Bush in the 2000 election.
Please take your post and choke on it. - endustry, on 04/07/2009, -2/+28Lucas has never shown much creative "genius" in my opinion. Most of the ideas for Star Wars characters, settings, etc. come from his art department. He merely picks what he likes and vetoes the rest. While I like the original trilogy, the story lines are pretty basic and probably wouldn't work as well if the casting hadn't have been so perfect. Han Solo is Han Solo more because of Harrison Ford and less because Lucas drafted a cocky bounty hunter character on a piece of paper. Taking more control in the prequels as well as directing all three really exposed him for the creative fraud that he is in my opinion.
As a businessman, Lucas is brilliant. He's largely responsible for the the existence of the Happy Meal, the explosion of movie tie-in promotions and a long list of other bridges between cinema and hamburgers, soft drinks, toys, etc. Also, he seems to have a yen for hiring really talented people to surround himself with--that is if you don't think about all of the lower level employees he keeps on as perma-temps. - jgtg32a, on 04/07/2009, -1/+25Or Indiana Jones
- CoreyTamas, on 04/07/2009, -1/+25"George Lucas could buy a petting zoo for his “friends” every day of the week and still have plenty left over for racecar beds and rare breeds of cats to eat, not to mention the vat of singles to get greased up and roll around in for the kids to peel off when they need candy money."
That's a Digg. - N01SE, on 04/07/2009, -1/+24George Lucas's evil is concentrated directly under his chin in that flabby sac. That's where you must hit him, otherwise he is invulnerable.
- Amadeus2490, on 04/07/2009, -0/+22** I climb into a refrigerator to avoid the nuclear blast.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 411 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is