What is Digg?134 Comments
- TheVirus, on 11/14/2007, -3/+79Why not pay actors less? Do they really deserve tens of millions of dollars for a movie? It's ridiculous.
- reeder, on 11/14/2007, -2/+52This is, without a doubt, the most feeble analysis about movie profitability I have ever seen. Most movies end up making money, due to over seas sales, pay-per-view (hotel and home), DVD sales and rentals, and TV airings. These revenue streams can last decades (Gone with the Wind anyone?).
- burke, on 11/14/2007, -2/+34If you can't make money on a movie that pulls in a hundred million dollars in a weekend, you're doing something really ***** wrong. Too many people along the line are making too much money. The reason they "can't make money" is that there are hundreds of people getting rich for doing absolutely nothing. Case in point: MPAA.
- inactive, on 11/13/2007, -0/+23There are plenty of cookie cutter movies out there but saying that no movie has been original in 20 years is just dumb. There are tons of good movies that have come out in the past 20 years.
- fassade, on 11/14/2007, -0/+20It is hard to trust any analysis by that industry, the studios especially. In 1994, Paramount denied the novel and screeplay writers royalties for Forrest Gump, saying that the film, which had grossed $661 million to that time, was still $60 million in debt. More recently, studios have claimed similar lack of profitability for Babylon 5 -- which made a huge DVD sales splash, and My Big Fat Greek Wedding -- one of the largest small budget indie files ever. This sort of studio book-cooking goes back at least to 1920 and the founding of United Artists, and it makes it hard to stomach any studio crying poverty.
- lead2thehead, on 11/14/2007, -9/+27Research: It's because your movies are lame and predictable, all of your storylines follow the same formula, your characters are all walking cliches, and you haven't had an original idea in 20 years.
- UtopiaInTheSky, on 11/13/2007, -0/+17And books are also a waste of time? Fictional characters playing out finctional events...
- dcbebop, on 11/13/2007, -3/+18When you can bring tens of millions of dollars opening weekend for your movies then you'll make the millions of dollars. Whereas a CEO is valued for their fund raising and product development abilities, actors are valued for the millions of braindead weekly moviegoers they bring to the box office.
- bugsy187, on 11/13/2007, -2/+16I agree. The strike is about the lack of royalties from internet sales. All the writers are asking is for their fair share in a changing market. When the sales are high, the royalty payments are high. When the sales are low, the payments are low. It's fair and reasonable for both parties.
The timing of this article makes it stink of strike-breaking propaganda. - basic0, on 11/13/2007, -0/+14(In deep, gravely announcer voice)
This summer... Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, Jackie Chan, and some sassy flavor of the month actress. In a action comedy that will warm your heart, and then blow you the ***** up. Jerry Bruckheimer Productions presents a Michael Bay film... "Holy *****, This Camera is Spinning Around Me While ***** Blows up in Slow Motion." Coming Summer 2008. - Scully1981, on 11/13/2007, -0/+14Wow. We all think so highly of you now! Thank you for enlightening us with that thrilling piece of information. I bet you're one of those people who also brags about not watching television.
- T8erT0T, on 11/13/2007, -1/+14You're silly.
- HappyScrappy, on 11/13/2007, -0/+13Don't fall for this junk. As Art Buchwald observed (when suing Paramount), if movies didn't make money, Hollywood wouldn't spend their money making them.
- koonchu, on 11/13/2007, -3/+15Why is this news? Filmmakers like Kevin Smith have been saying this for years.
- bubbakja, on 11/13/2007, -0/+11Oh yea movies like American Beauty and Clerks are just total cliche garbage! I do agree that the bulk of the "blockbusters" that hollywood drops insane money easily support your argument, but not everything is cookie cutter lame.
- fantasticFlan, on 11/13/2007, -0/+11Like there weren't formula movies before the '80s
- pintomp3, on 11/13/2007, -0/+10the way a lot of hollywood cooks their books is a scam. they have subcontractors (which they often own) for a lot of things that they pay ridiculous amounts of money for in order reduce the amount of profit reported, often reporting a loss. it's a great way to cheat people who's contracts only ask for shares of the profits and to avoid taxes. it's like the enron scheme in reverse. enron used phony companies to show sales and profits where there were losses, hollywood uses them to show losses where there are profits.
- arbulus, on 11/13/2007, -4/+12It's probably because Hollywood has been churning out pure ***** for who-knows-how-long, or recycling old movies, remaking old movies, or just not even trying to make a decent movie.
The whole of the movie and music industries need to be wiped away and we need to start fresh with new busines models and new ideas and new talent - artists who aren't "business" people, but people who are actually artists and care about art, music, cinema, and actually making a work of art to be proud of, not worrying about box office returns. - jonnyeuchre, on 11/13/2007, -2/+10the producers, taking a beating in the press, begin their propaganda campaign. First off, plead poverty.
- briancarnell, on 11/13/2007, -0/+7I know this is crazy talk, but you should have actually read the article.
As the analysis notes, net-profit deals like writers tend to get are basically shams. Even blockbuster movies can use clever accounting so that they never have to pay out.
But A-list actors and directors have responded by demanding participations where they get a share of the net gross. So rather than, say, negotiating to get 5 percent of the net profits of a $661 million film, they're negotating to get 5 percent of the net revenue of that $661 million film. It is much harder to hide net revenues with accounting tricks.
So in may ways this is the industry's ***** with net-profit deals coming back to hurt them. They've been so dishonest with those deals that no one takes them seriously anymore, and the participation deals are far more unpredictable than honest net-profit deals would have been. - MacSuxWindozSux, on 11/13/2007, -2/+9I blame Ninjas! I've been telling the police about ninjas for years!
- barius, on 11/13/2007, -0/+6Agreed. But I think there needs to be a 'market correction' to bring their pay-outs back in line with their real-world revenues. It's not in the best interest of actors to put their employers out of business. On the other hand, execs with inflated bonuses and the costs of the Hollywood 'lifestyle' are as much to blame IMHO.
- Cerebral, on 11/13/2007, -0/+5I agree with barius on this. If you look at the industry today with underground marketing and great movies being made on a small budget (Napoleon Dynamite, Blair Witch Project etc.) then you should be able to see that there is a big market for good stories. I don't care that Will Smith is in movie X, if the story is good and the actors in the movie fit the part then it works.
On the other side I would rather give the inflated salaries to the actors/directors and not just lower their pay to increase the executive's payouts which is really what would happen. - sagat, on 11/13/2007, -1/+6By comparison the profitability of the film industry is being eclypsed by the gaming industry. The tide really has turned.
- Cerebral, on 11/13/2007, -1/+6True, however if movies didn't make money they wouldn't make them anymore. This completely reeks of propaganda.
- SuckMyDigg, on 11/13/2007, -0/+5Bee Movie: Total Gross $71.8 million
American Gangster: $80.3 million
Dan in Real Life: $30.8 million
The Game Plan: $85.4 million
30 Days of Night: $37.4 million
Michael Clayton: $35.6 million
Tyler Perry's Why Did I Get Married?: $53.1 million
Ratatouille: $205.9 Million
Rush Hour 3: $140.1 Million
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix: $291.8 million
and many more. I'd say they're making quite a bit of money. - modemlooper, on 11/13/2007, -1/+5It's news because they are picketing and want change. They sure as hell aren't spending money on scripts, its got to be the reason most movies suck.
- Cerebral, on 11/13/2007, -0/+4I don't know about that. Dude seems to have some $$ from somewhere. You have to not look at box office figures but the big picture. He has a cult following which means that if he made a home video of himself taking a massive ***** and sold it he would sell at least X amount of copies to his hardcore fans.
- barius, on 11/13/2007, -0/+4Bond, James Bond.
- gwydon, on 11/13/2007, -1/+5The need to be able to use that money to build up their images so that we will listen to them when they tell us we are too greedy.
- LLamaStar, on 11/13/2007, -0/+4Sigh...Hollywood accountants are some of the best in the world...they can make any movie no matter how big of a hit it is look like it lost money. They've been doing it for years.
- Crynos, on 11/13/2007, -1/+5It's obviously worth it, because people pay it. If big star actors weren't worth the money they wouldn't get hired.
- inactive, on 11/13/2007, -3/+7Wow! You named one movie. That proves that all movies are like this.
For every Gone With the Wind or Wizard of Oz that continue making money like that, there are hunderds that make virutally nothing after far less than a decade. - mattsw84, on 11/14/2007, -0/+3Is absolute crap.
- chesscat, on 11/13/2007, -0/+3Because 97 percent of them are written for dimwitted teenagers.
- hshadow914, on 11/13/2007, -0/+3Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.
- viserov, on 11/13/2007, -2/+5Well, let's see. Many studios take a ***** on a piece of paper and call it script, hire terrible actors, wrap it up with expensive special effects, and hope that we consumers will pay to see it. When Hollywood starts taking care to produce decent, original movies instead of terrible sequels, more people will pay to see them.
Until then, we can look forward to House Wax 2, Club Dread 2, Some ***** Movie That Doesn't Deserve a Sequel 2, etc. - Barbarino, on 11/13/2007, -2/+5The companies may not make money, but the executives sure are...
- bubbakja, on 11/13/2007, -0/+3Those movies don't need to have a 2 next to them to show what is wrong with hollywood.
- Cerebral, on 11/13/2007, -0/+3Besides that I think the comment was directed at the execs who actually DO NOTHING.
- Scully1981, on 11/13/2007, -0/+3But that's not a good thing. Not watching television because a lot of shows are crap is like not talking to anyone because a lot of people are jerks.
- inactive, on 11/13/2007, -1/+4clerks II was awesome, love the donkey show part, and when that guy rubs his nipples to that song funny stuff
- solid12345, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2Hollywood has nothing to do with Uwe Boll, he funds his movies entirely himself. Gotta give him credit for that even if they do suck.
- castevens, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2When it costs them 300 million dollars to make a Superman movie, of course that movie isn't going to make money. It would have to be the one of the biggest box office hits ever to even turn a profit. (For those wondering, it cost almost $300,000,000, and took in an estimated $200,000,000)
- heystoopid, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2Only too true for to avoid paying Eastman Kodak royalties for the old nitrate black and white film stock the studio's which were based on the East Coast around New York moved to California virtually gained year around out door filming at the same time on Catalina Island .
However the second time around for color safety film he was ready for their cheating ways and they had no choice but to pay him the correct monies ! - zombies187, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2Indeed! It's amazing how many diggers are down there accepting the premise that movies don't make money.
- dn11, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2OH NOES! my 600 million world wide gross + dvd sales, merchandising and fast food tie ins totally made me poor, sorry writers
- inactive, on 11/13/2007, -3/+5That's the one thing that pisses me off about people whining about oil company execs and Jobs making tons of cash. They're providing extremely valuable services to the general populace. They keep our cars running and our computers from running Windows.
Tom Cruise jumps on couches and runs around like a douche and makes millions upon millions of dollars. How is that worth that kind of money? - barius, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2Did you miss the part where the author explained that 'older' movies make their money exactly as you say, but that 'new' movies are being saddled with excessive pay-outs to the stars and directors and therefore may not pay out for many years longer, if ever?
If the author left anything out I think it was the increasing pay-outs to lousy 'tow-the-line' execs and an industry wide mentality of excess. - Cerebral, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2But I loved those movies... /sarcasm
-
Show 51 - 100 of 132 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is