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

(1-87 of 87 posts) | Reply

jacog writes:
on Nov 13 2007 05:44 AM

Of course, the first thing they do is blame piracy - not the fact that a large portion of released films are utter garbage. Remakes, unnecessary sequels, etc.

When deciding what films to make next... the studio asks itself "What made money in the past?" or "What's making money for the competition?" and base their decisions on that. Is there anything wrong with thinking like that? Not necessarily... but what's happening is that there's less and less to get excited about in films. Cinema as a whole is becoming boring.

Sometimes I will see a movie that I really like, and then wonder if it was really a good movie, or if my standards have just dropped over the years along with the standards of film.

(Reply to this)

Ender7406 writes:
on Nov 13 2007 05:49 AM

Uh, crumbling economy = poor lower class = less luxury purchases?

(Reply to this)

xenogears writes:
on Nov 13 2007 05:59 AM

You both are right. Make some decent movies and they'll make money. Not to mention that with the way money is right now, people really don't have disposible income or free time like that to see crap. To busy workin a second job to keep the lights on. And ticket prices are way to f#cking high to see a movie over and over again in the theater.

(Reply to this)

Gimy writes:
on Nov 13 2007 06:18 AM

its a multitude of things. in this day and age...who wants to go to the theater? when it comes out on dvd...WHO wants to BUY a movie for 20 bucks when you can go to blockbuster or netflix(vomit) and watch it for a fraction of the price?? honestly, how many movies do you see and go "god...i have to have that!" maybe two...three times a year. least for me and the people i know. prices, BAD MOVIES, and inconvenience. c'mon...i don't feel sorry for these studios when they keep remaking sh3t and best of all...oscar hopefuls like Evan Almighty are released. if it wasn't for the Jesus crowd...that would have made 20 bucks...domestic. keep selling an overhyped overpriced BAD product...and thats what you get. might as well make the movies in china...

(Reply to this)

blank blank writes:
on Nov 13 2007 06:18 AM

when i look at this article, i believe it and dont believe it at the same time. I mean, one mega-profitable movie like 300, which cost 60 mil to make but took in around what, 220? or spider man 3 which cost 150ish and took in 380 or whatever, has to be enough to counter all the loses on alot of the other crap that hollywood puts out and doesnt make money.

on the other, more realistic hand, hollywood is stupid, because they sink 225 mil into a project like EVAN ALMIGHTY. if you are really going to sink 225 mil into a project like that, then dont come complaining about how you are losing money. you deserve it.

and one final thing which seems to make intuitive sense to me but not to the studios. when dvds first came out, people felt the need to restock their shelves with dvd versions of their favorite old movies. so it was a feeding frenzy for a while. but now, at least in my opinion, the jump in quality from dvd to HD-DVD or blu-ray isnt as stark as the jump from VHS to DVD was, so people arent willing to fork over 30 or 40 bucks per movie to switch their entire library. im not saying hddvd or blu-ray arent exceptionally clear, im just saying that vhs to dvd was a revolutionary paradigm shift worth paying for like discman to ipods, but dvd-hddvd is merely an improvement, like the difference between the first gen ipod and the current ones. until the next big thing comes along, which seems to be realistic 3D stuff, i dont think anybody will be buying hddvds or blu ray or dvds in droves.

(Reply to this)

blank blank writes:
on Nov 13 2007 06:27 AM

gimy, evan almighty really gets going man. i remember reading on this site that some shmuck producer was asked how he could justify a 225 mil comedy and he actually said "look, evan almighty is based on two very popular and profitable things, bruce almighty and the bible." (im paraphrasing of course, but thats almost exactly what he said).

i love going to the movies. and sometimes, i will willingly walk into what i know will be a crappy movie (ghost rider, im looking at you) just to see if it could possibly be as crappy as i think it will be. these days, most big budget franchise-type movies, the supposed money makers, are even crappier than i thought they would be, or at least highly disappointing (pretty much every big money blockbuster that came out this year was disappointing). and even though i am willing to fork over 10.50$ to go see how crappy ghost rider, transformers, spiderman 3, and the amusing but completely indechipherable POTC3 are, i refused to hand over 10.50$ to see evan almighty.

(Reply to this)

Kosomak writes:
on Nov 13 2007 06:29 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

(Reply to this)

Mono2k6 writes:
on Nov 13 2007 06:33 AM

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.

I know just from the perspective of my purchases I used to buy 3 or 4 DVD's a month a year or two ago. This year I've bought a grand total of 2 DVD's. I have all the movies I'd really care to own plus they don't seem to be priced to move anymore. Now the price has gone up 5 dollars and the price on HD and Blu are way too high to even consider switching my entire library. Guess Hollywood will just have to live without my 80-100 dollars a month.

The real question for me would be if movies don't make money then why do they make so many bad ones? It's not like you couldn't tell a movie like Capture was going to be crap when you got the script.

(Reply to this)

dahluzz writes:
on Nov 13 2007 06:44 AM

"the next thing to come out" isn't going to be released in the traditional sense at all. illegal downloading is easier than people think, so once the everyman figures out how to use torrents for movies the way they figured out how to use music downloading programs, no one will have a need for dvds at all. those who can't grasp the torrent system will just buy it from itunes.

plus, the new click-and-play netflix feature is going to revolutionize how people watch movies. as long as you pay your monthly subscription, you have their entire library at your finger tips, instantaneously. aside from the possible exclusion of special features, why even go out and rent a dvd, let alone buy one?

discs are passe anyways. a platform where half of its area is left unprotected and a single scratch can ruin the product? sounds dead to me. minidiscs (or UMDs) should've caught on, but since they didn't, the movie as tangible object seems increasingly unnecessary.

(Reply to this)

frogleg writes:
on Nov 13 2007 06:48 AM

In reply to this comment (#1273067)
Interesting, Kosomak. And sickening.

(Reply to this)

TombstoneLawDog writes:
on Nov 13 2007 07:13 AM

Here's the issue that keeps on buggin' me: Even if studios look at *ONLY* the bottom line, i.e., what has made money in the past, as opposed to what would be a GOOD movie, they should STILL not be making half the unforgivable sh#t that they make: ANY movie that was originally made famous by someone else, done by a new group of people with a new star playing either the SAME role or the 'Son of.'
See, for example, pretty much any movie originally from the Jim Carrey Canon, including 'Son of the Mask,' 'Dumb and Dumberer' and the soon-to-be-released (WHY, merciless god, WHY!?!?)'Son of Ace Ventura.' Which will almost doubtlessly be the failure it deserves to be.
Also, Roberto Benigni, for 'Son of Pink Panther' while I'm at it.

Any review of the box office failures of these movies should be a big, honking, stinking warning sign to NOT MAKE A FRIGGIN' NOTHER ONE.

And yet they do, which means *someone* is making money in the industry or they wouldn't risk making known failures.

(Reply to this)

ninjaandy writes:
on Nov 13 2007 08:19 AM

Gimy, is it even possible for you to post anything, anywhere, where you don't somehow try to insult Christians?

I mean, is that even a realistic possibility?

You take the phrase "one-trick pony" well past the extreme.

However, other than your implied attack on the artistic tastes of Christian movie-goers, I agree with everything you said. We have a pretty big DVD collection, but the vast majority of it is material that was originally released between 80 and 10 years ago, and we consider it more like a real library than an active source for viewing. Most of our other DVDs are seasons of great TV shows.

Hollywood is digging itself a very deep hole, and they will inevitably turn to the federal government to fix it for them somehow. The actors in the industry have a lot of lobbying power with the democrats, and the businessmen in the industry have pull with republicans. Either way we can look forward to taxes on internet downloads, financial bail-outs that get passed on to taxpayers, and other like policies.

(Reply to this)

skatalite writes:
on Nov 13 2007 08:52 AM

Who would've thunk it?

(Reply to this)

hugz4thugz writes:
on Nov 13 2007 08:53 AM

Dahluzz your probably right, but I don't think I'm the only one who can't stand watching movies on their computer.

(Reply to this)

JUDGE DREDD writes:
on Nov 13 2007 09:16 AM

Piracy is NOT to blame! Films like Fantastic Four 2, Night at the Museum 2, Garfield 2...

Remakes such as The Fog, Psycho, need i go on? What about watered down Game to film franchises that are nothing like the games theyre based on, ahem... Resident evils, Doom?

Or maybe its the Actors you choose? Nicholas Cage, Josh Hartnette need i go on?

Hope yore taking note Hollywood.... ITS YOURE FAULT!!!! YOURS! Reap what you sew!

Piracy, is a way the consumers get to SIFT through the CRAP! Have you ever wondered why its the occasional films on the shelves that IS good, they are the ones actually being Bought?

YOU ARE TO BLAME! Sort out youre mess! Make great films and we will lap them up!

(Reply to this)

jukeboxhero6660 writes:
on Nov 13 2007 09:19 AM

Even if you look at the crap people will watch, they will only watch it once and then the movie will die at 50 million bucks or so. the majority of movies never go over 60 (and thats pushing it) and yet they keep making movies that cost over that. it also doesnt help that they pay actors and directors to much (i mean over 10 million is insane for a couple months work, and a couple million is insane) then the owners and producers pay themselves to much. and then they pump out **** that fails and try and make us see it for 10 bucks then they they want us to pay over 20 bucks for a movie that wasnt very good. wow no wonder they are failing, but as been said someone has to be making a profit or this business would stop.

(Reply to this)

dahluzz writes:
on Nov 13 2007 09:26 AM

In reply to this comment (#1273319)
the future is one-screen-fits-all (ie TV, movies, game consoles and PC) personally, i'm getting a cinema screen instead of a big screen tv so that, with the help of a few usb connectors and a wireless keyboard, i can do it all from one screen. people with tv could look at apple tv, or various other radioshack cords that will allow you to view what's on your computer on the main screen. if what you're watching is a high quality file, problem solved. i get your point, but i'm just talking about where things are likely headed.

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Nov 13 2007 09:34 AM

And writers still deserve to be paid more? It looks like the writers just got ***** slapped in their claim that the studios make enough money to give them a pay increase.

(Reply to this)

BrianInSD writes:
on Nov 13 2007 09:49 AM

What's truly interesting is how much marketing a movie costs these days. You would think that, with the rampant conglomeration of the media that these corporations could somehow figure out a way to use that synergy to get their marketing costs down. However, I suspect that NBC charges Universal the same rates to advertise as ABC does, despite the fact that NBC and Universal are part of the same company. Same thing with the advertising rates ABC charges Disney, Fox charges Fox and AOL charges Warner Bros. Talk about robbing Peter to pay Paul.

The marketing budget for an "event" picture like, say, Spider-Man 3 or Harry Potter is often as high if not higher than the budget of the actual movie. This is especially obscene when you consider that movies like Spider-Man 3 and Harry Potter have built-in audiences.

Studios can blame piracy and audience apathy all they want but, between out-of-control production and marketing costs, the simple truth is they have built themselves an unworkable business model that is causing them to lose money.

(Reply to this)

Daniel Aaron writes:
on Nov 13 2007 10:03 AM

Lie. I have and still do work in Hollywood if you believe that i have a bridge to sell you. Movies made money before DVD's and will after they are probubly just eyeballing(and they are) another ticket increase and trying to sooth the mass's with B.S. Hollywood makes more money than most states in the Union and many small countries if you dont think they can manipulate a few numbers....

(Reply to this)

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)

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)

Kudos Mooney writes:
on Nov 14 2007 07:04 AM

Almostnotfamous, don't worry about aknddon3. Seriously. It's like talking to a cement wall. Gets you nowhere fast.

As far as quality movies coming out this year, there have been quite a few:
Rescue Dawn
Ratatouille
Gone Baby Gone
No Country for Old Men
3:10 to Yuma
Zodiac
and those are the ones off of the top of my tired head.

But as you can see, these aren't big Hollywood films (save for Ratatouille - Pixar can do no wrong). What the Hollywood system needs to understand is that we're not trying to fight against them because they make money. I would love for all the studios to make money. And a lot of it. But put that money to good use. If you keep churning out BS like Spiderman 3 and Transformers, then you get what you deserve. Bloated marketing costs, endless advertisements, toys, etc....you're just missing the whole point entirely.

The Hollywood system is like a pair of immature, irresponsible parents: they don't budget well at all and their priorities seem to be completely out of whack.

But I can't put all the blame on the Hollywood execs. I places a good portion of the blame on you guys as well. Look how high we hold up our celebrities. Look at all the fashion magazines littered with celebrities and their diet plans, who they're dating, their crushes, sex secrets, etc. Who cares? Well, apparently a lot of you do. A good majority of those on this forum probably don't, but that's because most people who read that crap. So celebrities get the idea (and fairly, i admit) that their a precious commodity. Also, look at how are society works as a whole. We may not live in the 80's, but we're still obsessed with material possesions and having the latest and greatest technology, clothes, cars, hairstyles, etc. We are doing this to ourselves. We should reevaluate what really is important in our lives. As cliche as it sounds, we should. Take stock of what you have, who you are truly, and look at yourselves as a whole. Realize that we have created a disposable society, one where divorces come by the bucketfuls, people sue each other over pointless BS, racism (of all damn things) still runs rampant in our lives (be it in our classrooms, bedrooms, televisions, radios, etc). We are trained to want MORE MORE MORE. We are trained to have THE VERY BEST!!! But best for whom? What is the best? What is the point, really?

And the studio heads feed off of that. They feed off that social personality quirk. And until we pull ourselves together and start thinking like intelligent mammals (as we so claim to be), then we shoot ourselves in the foot, allowing blood-sucking leeches like the Hollywood system (and the music industry, etc) to bleed us dry.

The change doesn't start with them: it starts with you.

(Reply to this)

SS109 writes:
on Nov 14 2007 07:33 AM

I am not buying DVD's anymore because I realize I never was watching them.

I still see a couple movies a month in the theatre, but I used to go every weekend. Now the lack of good films has me going home after Friday night dinner.

(Reply to this)

pitwheeler writes:
on Nov 14 2007 07:49 AM

I have yet to purchase a DVD(yes, ALL the movies I own are on VHS). Until Hollywood gets the message that to make money you have to create a great product for people to buy, they will continue to see their precious bank account numbers drop.

(Reply to this)

Vitamin M writes:
on Nov 14 2007 08:00 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
wow this is sickening.
I think the only way to solve the problem is to eliminate the studios and the money grubbing executives. So sure illegally download films and then just write a check to the actors or directors or the writers or set desigers or local carpenters union that worked on the film you liked. how about that?
For example Radio Head made their latest album a free download on their website and just asked for a donation from the downloader, something like that, I didn't download it because I'm not a fan but I like their idea.
Or there was the guy (vague huh?) who set up a website with a trailer he shot of the movie he wanted to make and asked for donations to do it. that sounds a$$ backwards but to me it makes more sense then watching whatever some accountant in hollywood thinks I'll want to watch.

(Reply to this)

bluestar50 writes:
on Nov 14 2007 08:48 AM

The reason movies don't make money now days is because Hollywood just keeps making ******* remakes and sequels. If they'd do something original for a change, maybe they'd have better luck.

(Reply to this)

BrianInSD writes:
on Nov 14 2007 08:53 AM

In reply to this comment (#1275113)
"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."

Do YOU know what 'Whit' is, aknddon?

whit(hw%u012Dt, w%u012Dt)n. The least bit; an iota: doesn't give a whit what was said; not a whit afraid.

now contrast that with the word Wit:

wit[wit]%u2013n.
1. the keen perception and cleverly apt expression of those connections between ideas that awaken amusement and pleasure.
2. speech or writing showing such perception and expression.
3. a person having or noted for such perception and expression.
4. understanding, intelligence, or sagacity; astuteness.
5. Usually, wits. a. powers of intelligent observation, keen perception, ingenious contrivance, or the like; mental acuity, composure, and resourcefulness: using one's wits to get ahead.
b. mental faculties; senses: to lose one's wits.
%u2014Idioms
6. at one's wit's end. end1 (def. 33).
7. keep or have one's wits about one, to remain alert and observant; be prepared for or equal to anything: to keep your wits about you in a crisis.
8. live by one's wits, to provide for oneself by employing ingenuity or cunning; live precariously: We traveled around the world, living by our wits.

Compare and contrast the two words, aknddon, and I think you'll agree: You don't know whit.

I own you again.

(Reply to this)

Read-A-Book writes:
on Nov 14 2007 08:55 AM

I don't usually post a comment when there are so many comments already posted. However, I just had to put in my two cents. Besides what everyone else has said, the internet has allowed many people (including myself) to watch the only good parts of a movie (e.g., Death Proof). Why do I need to watch the whole movie?

Moreover, I work in a public library and we get new releases when they become available. No fees and I can have them for 2 weeks. Sure, I might have to wait a little unless I am lucky/diligent to get my name on the request list early, but there is hardly anything out that I can't wait to see it.

If there is something I want to watch now and not wait, I go to my local grocery store and use the $1.00 vending machines. I could not tell you the last time I was in Blockbusters or Hollywood Video or any other video rental business. In fact, I live in a highly populated area and Blockbusters is the only surviving video rental place in my immediate area.

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Nov 14 2007 09:26 AM

Brian you havent owned a person in your life, i basically made you my ***** in the last thread, you could not even defend yourself, i felt bad because i was owning a little 12 year old, but hey you try to attack adults and you get pwned for it. Brian you have grammar school to go to, let the adults talk.

(Reply to this)

BrianInSD writes:
on Nov 14 2007 09:32 AM

In reply to this comment (#1275541)
Wow. I guess your whitty response sure told me.

(Reply to this)

Loserman writes:
on Nov 14 2007 11:07 AM

Ah, Brian, pay him no mind. He's just bitter about the fact no one repeatedly went to see his biographical film, "Freddy Got Fingered." If only it had included the deleted fantasy sequence -- Jamie Foxx and Colin Farrell wrestling in the buff -- it would have been a box office smash! We already know what "p" he owns, and it's quite dinky.

(Reply to this)

Almostnotfamous writes:
on Nov 14 2007 11:15 AM

In reply to this comment (#1275113)
Apparently I'm not the only one.....

How the Grinch Stole Christmas (51%)
Pearl Harbor (24%)
Men In Black 2 (38%)
Pirates 2: Dead Man's Chest (54%)
Shrek 3 (42%)
Wild Hogs (15%)
Rush Hour 2 (50%)
The Mummy Returns (47%)
The Passion of the Christ (51%)

Grindhouse (81%)
The Last King of Scotland (88%)
Super Size Me (92%)
Bend It Like Beckham (85%)
Spirited Away (97%)
Ghost World (92%)
Memento (94%)
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (94%)

But it's ok...i can see where you're coming from

(Reply to this)

BrianInSD writes:
on Nov 14 2007 01:09 PM

In reply to this comment (#1275712)
You're right. Besides, if I continue to taunt him he may seriously wound me by calling me a "gay" "retard" or some other "adult" words that I, with my sub-Forrest Gump mind, won't be able to understand and that's a level of verbal abuse I just don't think I can take.

(Reply to this)

wakko54321 writes:
on Nov 14 2007 02:13 PM

this is just a pile of studio bull****.

(Reply to this)

randal1013 writes:
on Nov 14 2007 04:23 PM

what a coincidence that right after the writers go on strike in an effort to get paid more, the movie industry reports that they have no money. the report could be 100% accurate for all i know, but it is a nice a little coincidence.

(Reply to this)

Special Ed writes:
on Nov 14 2007 04:39 PM

Eventually aknddon3 will get the message that nobody here really likes him. He will cleverly change his screen name in an attempt to give himself a fresh start.

aknddon4, nobody will be fooled.

(Reply to this)

BrianInSD writes:
on Nov 14 2007 05:03 PM

But yeah, just to get back on-topic: You'd think that if movies didn't make any money the studios would declare bankruptcy, stop making movies or be more selective about which ones they DO make.

Every year we hear about what box office records have been broken and whenever talent asks for an increased share of that money, suddenly those profits disappear. The studios are sounding more and more like the oil companies: "Yes, we're bringing in record amounts of money but that doesn't mean we actually have any money."

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Nov 14 2007 11:22 PM

Almostnotfamous, yeah you are right i guess the OPINIONS of some old men who do not understand that movies are supposed to ENTERTAIN you should be taken as fact.

P.S. Special Ed. it is okay that you need to make fake profiles and get pwned by me everytime you post, i understand that you are a moron. Hell i think my mentally challenged cousin could put up a better fight than you.

(Reply to this)

Almostnotfamous writes:
on Nov 14 2007 11:43 PM

Why do you have an account on this website if "the opinions of some old men" don't interest you....and for the record... i did like transformers, bad boys 2, terminator 3, Pirates 3, Revenge of the Sith, and a bunch of other entertaining movies....but in my opinion, there is a difference between those and wild hogs/pearl harbor/shrek 3/etc. etc....and besides, when over 90% of film EXPERTS think a certain way about a movie....isn't that good enough? Hell, I think your mentally challenged cousin probably has better taste in movies than you.

(Reply to this)

c_lidemark writes:
on Nov 15 2007 07:15 AM

I think the answer, which really is a question: Did ANYONE actually make less money? From what i read, Jeniffer Aniston makes an average of 18 mil. per movie she does. That's your answer why. Bloated incomes and useless jobs.

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Nov 15 2007 01:54 PM

Becasue unlike you i am not a pawn for the critics, i understand that critics are pointless, i have an account because i like to here about movies and i use to site to find movie times.

P.S. Just because 90% of critics liked it does not make it a good movie, critics opinion are worth a grain of salt.

(Reply to this)

bigmac64 writes:
on Nov 15 2007 10:04 PM

I love how the corporations try to blame everyone else, rather than the junk they are trying to sell us. Most movies are not worth seeing in theaters, or owning on any format.

And to promote DVDs as the best format, only to come out with the new format, what, four years later, adds to the insult. I've already decided that I'll keep my DVD library, just buy about five backup systems. They made me replace my vinyl and tapes, and I've had it. Sorry to hear the movie studios are losing money, but stop putting out crap, stop changing formatting and stop accounting practices that put Enron to shame. Then I'll have a (Very) little sympathy for your losses. Sorry, just had to rant, thanks for listening.

(Reply to this)

patrickbateman writes:
on Nov 16 2007 09:47 AM

If the movie industry made a sensible compromise as far as $12 movies and $25 DVDs without any redeeming extra features, they would inspire more people to patronize their business. Until then, people are still going to download movies, whether through torrents or Veoh or whatever they use, and not feel a tinge of guilt about it. The disgusting amounts of money that they drop on stupid advertising campaigns for even dumber movies (Transformers) could feed half of Africa for a year. The Hollywood elite are in the process of being grounded by pimple-faced nerds and internet asylumists, and I, for one, couldn't be happier. Die, Hollywood, Die.

(Reply to this)

bbsquidge writes:
on Nov 17 2007 11:06 AM

Sure. Movies don't make any money for Hollywood, but the mega-rich executives just keep making them anyway because they love watching money go down the drain. If you believe that, I have some property to sell you.

Bottom line: a business which must share percentages of the profits with certain parties are going to hire very diligent number-crunchers to make sure there AREN'T any profits... at least not any that show up on paper. Look at the homes the studio execs live in (not that you can, of course; you'd have to climb a mountain and fight your way past guards like Chuck Norris in Delta Force 2) and tell me there's no profit in making movies. This is just publicity aimed at damaging the writer's strike, and the media buy it without question.

I've worked in the business for more than ten years now. Trust me, the movie studios are doing just fine for cash.

(Reply to this)

dentistsugardust writes:
on Nov 17 2007 03:19 PM

everything in art is crumbling creatively. music, sports, even movies. i attribute it to the madness of "let's do it fast" "let's get it out" they've thrown enough out there like this (weakS**T) and pretty soon the odds are in favor of the meltdown. worthy art is not on tap, yet the entire entertainment industry carries on as if otherwise. the idea that if you put it out there, the people will come, has been exhausted of it's novelty.

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Nov 17 2007 04:10 PM

Do you honestly think a lot of people download movies? Do you honestly think this article is true? Man patrick you are a retard.

(Reply to this)

southwick writes:
on Nov 19 2007 09:56 AM

I am sure Hollywood is making money, I have a feeling its not as much as they would like to make.

BTW Serenity cost under 50 mil. to make and as of last year was making a profit.
Good movies will make money in the long run, even if their profits aren't immediate.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

A Fool and His Money

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links