ROTTEN TOMATOES: This Just In: Movies Don't Make Money Comments

This Just In: Movies Don't Make Money

by Jeff Giles | November 13, 2007

Summary

In marked contrast to the music business, which has spent the last seven years dealing with declining profits and assorted bad news, the 21st century has seen the film industry repeatedly setting new records for ticket receipts. The movie biz is healthy, right? Back to Article

(21-40 of 87 posts) | Reply

Gimy writes:
on Nov 13 2007 10:46 AM

ninja...yeah i can, but thats ALL that movie brought in...was the religious folk. NOBODY else thought "ha, that looks funny!" no, ALL i heard was...hey, lets take the kids to see a bible story...Evan Almighty. you can b3tch all you want about what i say JC Luva...but, i NEVER heard anybody other than a religious person say anything positive about that flick whatsoever. it was made to ride the coattails of Carrey AND because religious people will see ANYTHING if they think god is involved, and vice versa...will NOT see it if god is IN ANY WAY depicted wrongly or even RUMORED to be badly pictured in a flick. my point was right on, you're just a priss...but thanks buddy!

(Reply to this)

hewpot writes:
on Nov 13 2007 10:51 AM

so this just means that they should have 1.9 billion more right? ... so they didn't LOSE s h i t. they just didn't get as much, there still rich

(Reply to this)

Hamboner writes:
on Nov 13 2007 11:16 AM

In reply to this comment (#1273067)
"Hollywood Accounting" eh? I'll immediately buy into that.

It also seems incredibly convenient this news comes out in a consumer-tageting magazine during a writer's strike. This is pure spin from the studios. They hope to make it look as though the writers want a piece of a pie that isn't even there. It is shamefull and I find it ridiculous that people go to college and earn degrees in accounting so that they can learn to bend numbers and spin utter bull$hit like this.

(Reply to this)

dracus writes:
on Nov 13 2007 11:29 AM

I'm crying in my popcorn for poor old Hollywood. Its a sin it 'tis, a mortal sin!

(Reply to this)

StupidSmurf writes:
on Nov 13 2007 11:43 AM

Hmmm...could perhaps this be the situation?

Step 1: Hollywood movies begin to decline in quality, as sequelitis and remakeitis run rampant.

Step 2: Fewer people go to movies as a result.

Step 3: Hollywood says "Oh noes! Fewer people are going to movies! They're clearly getting apathetic! We need to HYPE movies all the more!"

Step 4: Huge tracts of land..er...cash are ponied up to mericlessly hype crappy movies. You can't swing a dead studio exec without hitting some relentless (and ultimately costly) marketing shpiel.

Step 5: People eventually begin to catch on that extensive marketing doesn't mean the movie won't blow goats, so they STILL stay away (inconsiderate bastards that they are!).

Step 6: Hollywood invokes the Law of Diminishing Returns and hypes the movies all the more, driving their ad budgets even further through the roof.

Step 7: Making movies isn't profitable!

Step 8: Someone writes an article about it. Break out the Kleenexes!

(Reply to this)

lpbreeze writes:
on Nov 13 2007 11:48 AM

On DVDs and going to the movies my main problem is the prices. DVDs are way too expensive. How much does it cost to make them? It is simply not worth it shelling out 20 bucks. Same with going to a play that is 10-12 dollars. I see the very top movies but there are lots that I don't bother to watch that I want to. Get the prices down a lot and then more people will go. Why can't a movie ticket price drop to five dollars once a movie has been out two weeks?????

(Reply to this)

kissman24 writes:
on Nov 13 2007 11:52 AM

I don't feel bad for the movie industry. These people waste like $200 million to produce a mediocre remake like "Bruce Almighty" and I guess we're to blame for not seeing it.

Secondly, look at the crap they want us to see! 2007 spawned A LOT of bad movies. I've been duped by these Hollywood studios a bunch this year. So, when you make a bunch of poor quality movies, who is going to want to buy them on DVD?

For them to charge between $19.99 to $21.99 for a regular priced DVD is insane. It's just not worth the price in most cases and people are starting to feel that DVDs are no longer the 'value' that they used to be.

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Nov 13 2007 11:54 AM

The article is also BS, DVD sales are actually higher this year than last year so that is a major flaw in that point, i would not be surprised if that article is paid for by the studios to hurt the writers cause.

(Reply to this)

jstrmereel writes:
on Nov 13 2007 11:56 AM

Um, if Hollywood really was losing that much money, how come all the studio executives are still living in big houses and driving nice cars. Shouldn't we have a lot of homeless movie people right now?

(Reply to this)

insanemansam5 writes:
on Nov 13 2007 12:04 PM

I think problem is that the market reached saturation after a huge expansion. Stock which is the way many large corporations finance operations is not based on current earnings but future earnings. Which means for corporations to keep their stock prices high they're encouraged to gamble. So, during a boom time in an industry such as between 1999-2004 for the film industry producers will tend to get greedy and take riskier bets. Eventually though the producers in an industry over compensate for demand and consequently go through a bust period after rapid expansion unless there is a technological break through. There was a variation of this in early 00's when many dotcom businesses lost money because they couldn't sustain levels of growth expected in the 90's. That's basically all that's happening the film industry sustain the level of growth it had between 99-04 so it's losing money. It's perfectly normal and expected. The only reason you're even reading about it is probably because of the writers strike.

(Reply to this)

rgallitan writes:
on Nov 13 2007 12:15 PM

Great stuff here. Let me also add the suggestion that these statistics aren't accounting for new movies vs. old movies.

What I mean is, after the introduction of DVD, families not only purchased new movies, but also bought replacements for their old VHS collection, and probably quite a few classic movies that they never owned on any format. That's an expensive process that probably take a few years, but people are finally catching up. My own family, which owns hundreds of movies, is finally down to the last half-dozen that we only have on tape. The fantastic collector's boxes of most great movies - even Star Wars, finally (sorta) - are now out there and getting dusty on shelves.

So I propose that a large part of that 12.5% drop is that people are mostly only buying new movies now. There are definitely other factors, especially economic downturn, but I bet that number wouldn't be so steep if it was adjusted to include only recent productions.

(Reply to this)

talan7 writes:
on Nov 13 2007 12:28 PM

Hollywood accounting proves that most movies aren't made for the craft or to be profitable on paper but as a way for those in charge to rob and steal to line their pockets. It's a big machine that can't be fixed. A movie could cost $10 to make and bring in a bilion dollars and they'd still find a way to say it lost money.

(Reply to this)

Floor Man writes:
on Nov 13 2007 12:38 PM

"[The] film industry [is] repeatedly setting new records for ticket receipts"

Really? Regarding this issue literally, the actual receipts for ticket COUNTS have gone down, not the GROSSES. Obviously, inflation is to blame.

Oh, and Star Wars is awesome.

(Reply to this)

Almostnotfamous writes:
on Nov 13 2007 01:09 PM

To all those who say that the reason hollywood is losing money is because they aren't making any good movies:

Good movies that didn't make as much money as they should have:
Eastern Promises ($17 Million)
Hot Fuzz ($23 Million)
Grindhouse ($25 Million)
Idlewild ($12 Million)
The Last King of Scotland ($17 Million)
Thank You For Smoking ($24 Million)
Super Size Me ($11 Million)
Bend It Like Beckham ($32 Million)
Spirited Away ($10 Million)
Ghost World ($6 Million)
Memento ($25 Million)
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind ($34 Million)

Bad movies that made more money than they deserved:
How the Grinch Stole Christmas ($260 Million)
Rush Hour 2 ($226 Million)
The Mummy Returns ($202 Million)
Pearl Harbor ($198 Million)
Attack of the Clones ($302 Million)
My Big Fat Greek Wedding ($241 Million)
Men in Black 2 ($190 Million)
Shrek 2 (#441 Million)
The Passion of the Christ ($370 Million)
Pirates of the Caribbean 2 ($423 Million)
Spider-Man 3 ($336 Million)
Shrek the Third ($321 Million)
Wild Hogs ($168 Million)

I rest my case.....

(Reply to this)

zgberg writes:
on Nov 13 2007 01:39 PM

The only way Hollywood can get out of this is if they embrace the internet instead of fighting it. HDVD/Blue-Ray - they are the last of the hard copy formats. Soon, it will all be downloaded. After the download format peeters out a few years later, it will all (by all, I mean all types of media - music, video, pics) be streamed to us and feel like we own it.

The solution for Hollywood is ( I hate to say this) put DRM on all content and get as much money as possible everytime the file flies through the internet. they need to code everything before its even released and track that file from start to finish.

(Reply to this)

highdough writes:
on Nov 13 2007 01:45 PM

Mmm. This article comes out just as the studios and the writers are squaring off about residuals. What a coincidence! It's also crap.

(Reply to this)

slip writes:
on Nov 13 2007 02:06 PM

i agree with jacog, most movies are garbage my favorite movies this year are 300, Transformers, Stardust, and Knocked Up. Although Knocked Up is truly the only original film. I have noticed that people feel that everything has been done before...

(Reply to this)

gwai_lou writes:
on Nov 13 2007 02:38 PM

Too many movies are being made for the sake of making movies - instead of something like "hey, this is a great script/concept etc," it's more like "the second week of march lacks a movie for the teen demographic, , we have 3 months and 20 million to make and market it."

(Reply to this)

gigantor21 writes:
on Nov 13 2007 02:40 PM

almostnot - Uh...how many of those actually came out in '06?

I rest my case.

I agree with most all the reasons listed here; slowing economy, poor movie quality, overhyping, budgeting, pricing, and the growing ubiquity of digital distribution. Oh, and let's not forget spin on the studios' part, since the strike would **** things up irrespective of all the other factors.

There, the losses are no excuse. They still do a ****ty job handling money anyway. Some of it could've been used to pay the writers better.

On a side note, these are some of the most constructive comments I've read here.

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Nov 13 2007 02:41 PM

This is an underhanded article, this is obviously false and is a ploy by the studios to get people on their side against the writers, i think this is the turning point, i have officially sided with the writers now.

P.S. Slip Knocked Up is not original either, it is a rip off of many movies and book.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

A Fool and His Money

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links