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

(41-60 of 87 posts) | Reply

aknddon3 writes:
on Nov 13 2007 02:43 PM

Almostnotfamous your list is funny because only two of the movies that you thought did not get what they deserved were good while almost the entire other list except for two movies were entertaining. You fail.

(Reply to this)

Heath H. writes:
on Nov 13 2007 03:22 PM

Sorry Hollywood, we don't have enough money to keep up with the consuming of your products you greedy bastards!

(Reply to this)

Allmano writes:
on Nov 13 2007 03:25 PM

I agree with everything being said here. If hollywood wants to spend a hundrer million dollars on a crap movie then let them. They will get the hint sooner or later. I can honestly say I have seen one film that I actually liked this year in theaters the rest were crap. Hollywood is out of ideas, thats why they feed us remakes, graphic novels, comic book and video game adaptations. The last TRULY original film I saw and loved was Pulp Fiction, and that film cost nothing to make.

(Reply to this)

blank blank writes:
on Nov 13 2007 03:26 PM

almostnotfamous if it werent for the crappy money making movies (wild hogs) we probably wouldnt get the good movies that dont make any money (eastern promises)

(Reply to this)

IMAmoose24 writes:
on Nov 13 2007 03:57 PM

I know why I personally not bying DVD's lately:

A) Waiting to buy HD DVD'S when the players and the movies themself go down to a resonable price.(EX: Transformers)
B) They don't produce the DVD's I want .I would like the whole product.(Ex: Two seperate Grindhouse DVD'S)

If these 2 problems were solved, I'd be in DVD heaven. The only DVD'S worth bying these days are TVShow DVD's.

(Reply to this)

goodreel writes:
on Nov 13 2007 04:46 PM

The movie industry is a poster child for wasteful spending. One of my favorite movies of the year was 3:10 to Yuma,w hich cost $55M to make (and James Mangold was touting it as a bargain) and has made about $53.5M to date. This would be a respectable figure if the budget hadn't been so high. I loved the movie, and I realize you have to create everything from scratch for a Western, but still I scratch my head when I look for the money, 'cause I just don't see it in those sets which consist of a few dilapidated buildings. Even when you consider extras, stunt men, trains, horses, animal wranglers, effects (not so much in a western), I still don't see it. And how did the studio expect to turn a profit? Open Range, which did exceptionally well for a western, only made about $58M. How hard is it to figure out that the foreign Box Office for a western will be almost negligible? If it's true the advertising and distribution add another 50% to the cost, the DVD sales/rentals will allow the movie to break even, or make about $15 M tops, if you assume it will do $30 from DVD, which, again, might be a stretch for a western.
The studios produce most movies in a state of denial about the realistic possibility of solid financial returns, and the budgets are probably bloated and padded at every step of the way (exception: the writers). One of the most conspicuous examples of this is paying Nicole Kidman $17M per picture, when the only thing bankable about her is the probability that she will bomb at the box office.
Again, I loved 3:10 to Yuma, and I use it as an example only because I'm familiar with it. But since they spent too much money to make it, it will barely be profitable, and unfortunately, fewer quality movies like this will be made.

(Reply to this)

~*Admiral Snowstorm*~ writes:
on Nov 13 2007 05:24 PM

"Wow I wonder why people aren't buying DVD's like they used to. Could it be that they're pushing a newer more expensive format at us while at the same time raising the price on standard DVD's and not offering anything new? Nope it must be piracy. That's the only logical conclusion."

This about sums up what I think of it. Plus, like everyone else has said, most DVD's just aren't worth buying in the first place. When Ratatouille comes out, I fully intend to buy it. 20$ or not, it's a movie worth owning. But when Meet The Spartans comes out on DVD, I'm just going to laugh. Same price, sure, but a canyon of difference in quality.

(Reply to this)

TheAnswerMVP2001 writes:
on Nov 13 2007 05:55 PM

Try putting out quality films and not paying the stars 20 million and maybe you'll make some money. The fact of the matter is these figures are skewed and if they really do have a loss it's because they constantly put out crap like "Whose Your Caddy?" I seem to remember Spider-man 3 and Pirates 3 setting box office records, frankly I think the movie studios are lucky they're making the money they are with all the crap they put out. I used to go to the movies all the time, now I go 5-6 times a year and only for films my favorite actor or actress is in, and if I ever buy a DVD it's usually that film I went to see. I think they need to focus more on QUALITY not QUANTITY maybe their numbers might come out better.

And try releasing movies for both Blu-ray and HD DVD, you idiot studios are shooting yourself in the foot by limiting the release to one type, not everyone is going to by both players.

(Reply to this)

synergyred writes:
on Nov 13 2007 06:16 PM

This article really rings true to me. To be honest, I haven't bought a new DVD in months. Perhaps even a year. Going out and buying pricey DVDs/box sets just isn't realistic any more. My money has to go towards more important and more expensive things, like gas for my car (which has entered the "fix me soon" phase) so I can get to my job that's located almost an hour away because I live in a rural setting. Or oil to heat my house. Or groceries. Or rent. Or all of those other pesky expenses that sneak up on you.

Noe to mention, there are fewer DVDs that I want to buy nowadays. I know I'll be putting the collections edition of Serenity on my Christmas list, not to mention Ratatouille, but it's been a long time since I've been really excited about a DVD being released. Sure there have been some decent films released recently, but they just seem to lack that replay value that you used to get out of films like Lord of the Rings. So many movies today seem to be "just okay." They have great action scenes and visuals yet be missing out on a decent storyline. Or they'll have great acting but the film will be poorly executed on every other level. Or, as many people have mentioned, they'll lack originality. They're movies that are worth checking out in the theater or renting but they're not worth purchasing.

Hollywood is just playing it safe too much. They seem to be solely depending on projects nowadays that come with a preexisting audience. So we get an overload of sequels, threequels, remakes, movies based on some other medium (books, comics, TV shows, video games), or movies that just seem to be building off of the trend of the moment (for instance, National Treasure came out when everyone was gaga over The DaVinci Code book). Can these movies be good? Of course they can. But it's made everything so damn predictable. I can tell from many of the posts here that people are getting sick of it, so they're going to the movies less and less.

Still, what is it that makes the most money at the box offices? Predictable films. And until we find something original to get excited about again, Hollywood's going to get more and more predictable in the upcoming years. Ah well, no one will be able to pay for the gas to get to the theater anyway.

(Reply to this)

Special Ed writes:
on Nov 13 2007 07:21 PM

Hollywood movies have never made any money. Don't believe me? Go to Bervely Hills or Brentwood and see for yourself. There aren't any producers or studio execs living there. Those guys can't afford to live anywere west of the 110 freeway. And yes, that guy standing on the off ramp, holding up the sign "unemployed Hollywood producer, will work for food" really is a Hollywood producer and not just a clever homeless dude.

Almostfamous, don't waste your time responding this akonddon3 guy. He's not very bright as you have probably noticed. If you come back with a witty rebuttal, this guy will just start calling you names. That's how he attacks things he cannot understand, like the good movies on your list. In fact, the reason why most of those great films didn't make any money at the box office is because guys like akonddon3 paid to see Spiderman 3 seven times. Then he bought the DVD, both widescreen and full screen versions, just in case one had something in it that the other one didn't.

akonddon3, in case you don't realize it yet, the first paragraph is an example of sarcasm. Look it up in the dictionary. (The second paragraph is not sarcasm).

(Reply to this)

Missileman writes:
on Nov 13 2007 07:45 PM

It's easy enough to hide profits from studies like this. Just look at how difficult it has been for Peter Jackson to get a hold of the New Line books.

The profit the movie makes is after all the salaries and bonuses that eveyone involved in the production might get, right up to the top execs. If you dont make any profit, you dont pay any tax either. What a happy accident for the studio...

(Reply to this)

Bondesque writes:
on Nov 13 2007 08:01 PM

blank blank - movies don't ake as much as you think. . . atleast not for the producers. 300 made around 450 mil world wide but only half is kept by studios. and it cost 60 million to make and 40 mil to market so the profits are aroung 125 mil - which is good but not as good as it looks.

(Reply to this)

Almostnotfamous writes:
on Nov 13 2007 09:21 PM

In reply to this comment (#1274408)
So i guess if you liked all the movies on my "crappy" list, that means you are one of the few people on here who aren't complaining that the studios need to make better movies....because you already think they do! And i guess if you did like most of those movies, my comment wasn't really to you. It was more to the people who like the kind of movies that i do. They are the ones who always complain about there not being more like them, and then they never actually go to see the movies they claim to want.....But seriously? you only liked two of them??? they are some of the best reviewed movies of the past 5 years...that seems weird.....

(Reply to this)

Blank Frank writes:
on Nov 13 2007 11:11 PM

I remember taking a class on the music biz in college, and though I don't have my notes on hand, far less than half of the releases actually make a profit. It might have been 25% of releases pay for the other 75%. I wouldn't be surprised movies are similar--actors demand huge cuts, special effects and post-production costs have to be high to make all these eye-popping , the director naturally deserves a cut, things run over budget, you need to buy prime-time airtime on stations across the country in order to market the movie, you pour money into PR to get people talking about it and making it go from a movie to a Major Event, etc., etc. It's nearly a wonder how any money gets made.

(Reply to this)

Jexy writes:
on Nov 13 2007 11:48 PM

I'm not buying it. I would MAYBE buy it if they were just talking about domestic grosses, but all I have to do is take a look at Boxofficemojo.com and see worldwide grosses for movies. even if you take into account that the studios only get 55% of the revenue.... they are STILL raking it in well over their budgets. Variety is always posting false information, so this comes as no surprise. Only a couple of movies have lost money (Evan Almighty, Captivity) but their total losses do not come CLOSE to the gains of one huge blockbuster like Harry Potter, Spidey 3, or Transformers. Just look at what they made worldwide. Add in rentals, dvd sales, promotions, toys, video games, etc etc etc... The math does not add up. At all. Hollywood has to be rolling in dough.... or else everyone wouldn't be making more money and becoming rich.

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Nov 13 2007 11:58 PM

Almostnotfamous the only good movies you mentioned on your list were Hot Fuzz and Thank You for Smoking, Last King was interesting but not entertaining, and Memento was unique but not good. THe "crappy" list you talked about are filled with entertaining movies, which in case you did not know is what movies are supposed to be, with a few exceptions.

P.S. Special Ed you need to go back to your special ed classes and learn what a whitty reply is, or even learn what the word whit is. So did you find a source that says that EVERYONE wants to and can download movies now? Come on little child, it is time to put up or shut up.

(Reply to this)

Lizard Brain writes:
on Nov 14 2007 02:55 AM

Yeah, right. Just like the automobile business is on its last legs...wonder how they afford all those commericials though?

(Reply to this)

Shaomaike writes:
on Nov 14 2007 03:42 AM

One of the better threads I've seen on RT.

This article activates my BS detector, even though I have been suspecting that record BO grosses haven't been translating in corresponding profits.

Why haven't I heard of Global Media Intelligence before, whose name sounds like such an oxymoron? Oh, this is their first report, based on other news sources. Their timing is certainly impeccable.

I'm surprised nobody's picked out a glaring flaw in their report's argument, namely:

"Analyzing the 132 pics distributed by the U.S. majors in 2006, it estimates a pre-tax operating loss of $1.9 billion after five years of exploitation across all global media..."

"...after five years of exploitation..."? If they're analyzing 2006 releases, isn't this evaluation premature by at least 3 years? This just doesn't compute!

Be skeptical, be very skeptical.

(Reply to this)

Raziel5000 writes:
on Nov 14 2007 03:43 AM

In reply to this comment (#1274760)
Missileman - great point! The fiasco Peter Jackson went through that you mentioned is a great example of what the studio's are really like. New Line seem especially underhanded (they screwed Troma, an independant films studio, royally - and it seems to be their standard way of doing business).
Its pretty obvious whats happening here, considering the timing. Its to help back up their side regarding the writers negotiations. But to also have a strong position of non-negotioation when the actor and director contracts are due for re-negotiation (which is soon). Basically, the actors and directors will quite rightly be demanding residuals for new media, as the writers have. The studios don't want anyone getting whats owed to them from this potential gold mine. They want it all for themselves.

They also dont want to budge on the amount of residuals paid out for DVD sales either. They can say what they want about DVD sales, but the fact is they make a hell of a lot from this and I cant see it changing anytime soon. Figures are always going to dip and rise, but even if there has been a dip this year - I doubt its significant. In actual fact, a lot of DVD retailers are stating a rise this year.

The good thing about all of this, however, is that everyone seems to be picking up on the stupidly obvious tactic and the studio's are getting virtually no support from people.

(Reply to this)

Kudos Mooney writes:
on Nov 14 2007 06:44 AM

In reply to this comment (#1274286)
Transformers and 300 are good films?

Well, there's why studios keep making crap films. Because crap people go see it.

::shrug:: we're all to blame.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

A Fool and His Money

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links