Movie industry references - or - 'What goes into making a movie' 1 1

[Bosco685]

DVD still the biggest seller for now without Digital tracking data.

Edited March 3, 2023 by Bosco685

[RedRaven]

Older data but I assume the trend continues...

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ex-asml-employee-accused-data-175352799.html

[theCapraAegagrus]

I would've thought most everybody has a Blu-ray player by now.

[Dr. Balls]

On 3/3/2023 at 7:57 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

I would've thought most everybody has a Blu-ray player by now.

Personally, I thought everyone would have converted to digital by now. I got rid of my DVDs/BluRays around 12 years ago and have been digital since (except for my VCR in my office). I still have my first digital purchase from iTunes in my library (Inception).

I was really surprised at the DVD data. Back in 2006 or so, I cobbled together a hilarious caveman-style version of "the cloud" in my house. I used to rip Netflix DVDs and put them onto external hard drives mounted to my "entertainment server" in my closet, and then watch them on my TV that was hooked up as a monitor from the computer (running cables and Cat5 through my basement joists up through the floor to give it that "seamless" look ). Wifi was either terribly unreliable or too slow to consider back then, if I recall correctly.

If I wanted to watch it on the big screen in the living room, I'd have to copy them (or download shows via iTunes and then copy) over to my iPod, and then run my iPod through my stereo receiver (which had an iPod input) which would show it through the TV (I used to watch '24' every week like this, buying each episode from iTunes because where I lived didn't have a Fox affiliate).

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 3/3/2023 at 11:45 AM, Dr. Balls said:

Personally, I thought everyone would have converted to digital by now. I got rid of my DVDs/BluRays around 12 years ago and have been digital since (except for my VCR in my office). I still have my first digital purchase from iTunes in my library (Inception).

I was really surprised at the DVD data. Back in 2006 or so, I cobbled together a hilarious caveman-style version of "the cloud" in my house. I used to rip Netflix DVDs and put them onto external hard drives mounted to my "entertainment server" in my closet, and then watch them on my TV that was hooked up as a monitor from the computer (running cables and Cat5 through my basement joists up through the floor to give it that "seamless" look ). Wifi was either terribly unreliable or too slow to consider back then, if I recall correctly.

If I wanted to watch it on the big screen in the living room, I'd have to copy them (or download shows via iTunes and then copy) over to my iPod, and then run my iPod through my stereo receiver (which had an iPod input) which would show it through the TV (I used to watch '24' every week like this, buying each episode from iTunes because where I lived didn't have a Fox affiliate).

I will never go digital because I would never own the content. For example; I bought maybe a dozen movies on PSN, and then they stopped selling/renting/streaming movies. Poof, something around $250 in assets disappeared.

[Dr. Balls]

On 3/3/2023 at 9:48 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

I will never go digital because I would never own the content. For example; I bought maybe a dozen movies on PSN, and then they stopped selling/renting/streaming movies. Poof, something around $250 in assets disappeared.

Do you think that's what keeps people from going all-in on digital? Even Apple has some sort of disclaimer hidden away in their TOS that says something like if they remove it, you're SOL.

The upside of streaming is that now the major studios have their own platform - as long as I subscribe to Paramount, I'll always have access to all the Star Trek stuff, so I don't need to buy it in digital format. The flipside being that if I'm not watching Star Trek, I cancel my subscription - and can always re-up if I'm in the mood, so I'm not constantly shelling out $10 a month. I do like that concept and it does keep me from buying a whole lot of digital content. (side note: I had bought the entire Columbia House VHS Star Trek TNG series at $19.95 for two episodes... ouch. Then I sold them to finance the TNG series on DVD and then got rid of those. I have paid my Star Trek dues. )

Edited March 3, 2023 by Dr. Balls

[Bosco685]

On 3/3/2023 at 9:14 AM, RedRaven said:

Older data but I assume the trend continues...

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ex-asml-employee-accused-data-175352799.html

Yup. The MPAA reports get published annually.

How much of that is Wakanda Forever?

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 3/3/2023 at 12:06 PM, Dr. Balls said:

Do you think that's what keeps people from going all-in on digital? Even Apple has some sort of disclaimer hidden away in their TOS that says something like if they remove it, you're SOL.

The upside of streaming is that now the major studios have their own platform - as long as I subscribe to Paramount, I'll always have access to all the Star Trek stuff, so I don't need to buy it in digital format. The flipside being that if I'm not watching Star Trek, I cancel my subscription - and can always re-up if I'm in the mood, so I'm not constantly shelling out $10 a month. I do like that concept and it does keep me from buying a whole lot of digital content. (side note: I had bought the entire Columbia House VHS Star Trek TNG series at $19.95 for two episodes... ouch. Then I sold them to finance the TNG series on DVD and then got rid of those. I have paid my Star Trek dues. )

Obviously, some share the same sentiment as me, but I'm sure that others are simply stuck in their ways and don't really know why.

Even in that case, for example, HBO Max will take Man of Steel on and off the platform for seemingly no reason. So even if they own the content, there's no obligation to share it via streaming.

Streaming is obviously great for many reasons, but I will always advocate for owning whatever one pays for, whenever possible.

[Bosco685]

On 8/15/2019 at 6:23 AM, Bosco685 said:

How the British government film incentive is utilized by companies like Disney to offset production costs, yet leads to greater details on its production budgets due to required reporting.

Disney Reveals Guardians Of The Galaxy Was Over Budget At $232 Million

Why the number difference came out is although Disney doesn't have to report the actual details, the British Film Institute (BFI) does have to publish such details to justify the tax incentive plan it offers studios to attract filming locally. And what is more interesting is the $232.3M was after the tax incentives, as the actual costs before rebates was higher.

Disney Reveals Financial Muscle Of 'Avengers: Infinity War'

Disney has figured out a great plan with London to cut down its costs massively. It's a smart move on its part.

The UK Film Industry sure loves the Disney support in its area.

Quote

Production for seven of the movies based on Marvel Comics superhero characters has taken place in Britain, and as the table below shows, the cost so far of Infinity War is surpassed only by the $495.2 million (£306.1 million) spent on its prequel, 2015 blockbuster Avengers: Age of Ultron. There is good reason Disney has thrown its weight behind it.

 

[Bosco685]

@drotto UK Labor reports pay off again

Quote

Disney has revealed that it spent more than $270 million on making The Marvels, the latest instalment in its Marvel Comics super hero saga, which will be released in theaters in November.

 

The blockbuster budget is disclosed in company filings released yesterday by the Disney subsidiary which made the movie.

 

They show that over the two-year period from the incorporation of the company to September 30, 2022, it spent $274.8 million (£221.8 million) and banked a $55 million (£44.4 million) subsidy from the government of the United Kingdom where the movie was made. This brought its net spending down to $219.8 million meaning that the movie will have to gross at least $439.6 million at the box office to break even as studios get around half of theater takings. Passing this threshold might not be child's play.

 

The movie is helmed by Nia DaCosta and stars Oscar-winner Brie Larson as Captain Marvel - a former fighter pilot who gets super powers from an alien artefact. She is joined by 21 year-old newcomer Iman Vellani and Teyonah Parris, stars of Disney's acclaimed streaming shows, Ms. Marvel and Wandavision.

Edited September 20, 2023 by Bosco685

[TupennyConan]

$270M  

[Bosco685]

On 9/21/2023 at 5:13 AM, TupennyConan said:

$270M  

Samuel L. required his 'Mean Motherf@&$*π' mug warmed to 68 degrees throughout the day. Necessary expenses!

[TupennyConan]

On 9/21/2023 at 5:39 AM, Bosco685 said:

Samuel L. required his 'Mean Motherf@&$*π' mug warmed to 68 degrees throughout the day. Necessary expenses!

The creatives aren't negotiating with a good or bad faith Disney, they're negotiating with a low-low intellect Disney. 

[Bosco685]

On 9/21/2023 at 5:43 AM, TupennyConan said:

The creatives aren't negotiating with a good or bad faith Disney, they're negotiating with a low-low intellect Disney. 

[Bosco685]

On 12/30/2015 at 5:28 PM, Bosco685 said:

Hollywood Accounting: Isn't it as easy as reading a studio's prospectus to figure out profits?

 

How Hollywood Accounting Can Make a $450 Million Movie 'Unprofitable'

 

Quote

Here is an amazing glimpse into the dark side of the force that is Hollywood economics. The actor who played Darth Vader still has not received residuals from the 1983 film "Return of the Jedi" because the movie, which ranks 15th in U.S. box office history, still has no technical profits to distribute.
 

How can a movie that grossed $475 million on a $32 million budget not turn a profit? It comes down to Tinseltown accounting. As Planet Money explained in an interview with Edward Jay Epstein in 2010, studios typically set up a separate "corporation" for each movie they produce. Like any company, it calculates profits by subtracting expenses from revenues. Erase any possible profit, the studio charges this "movie corporation" a big fee that overshadows the film's revenue. For accounting purposes, the movie is a money "loser" and there are no profits to distribute.

 

Hollywood Accounting: How A $19 Million Movie Makes $150 Million... And Still Isn't Profitable

 

Quote

We've written about the wonders of Hollywood accounting before. It's a series of tricks pulled by Hollywood studios to make most of their movies look unprofitable, even when they're making a ton of money. The details can be complex, but a simplified version is that every studio sets up a new "shell" company for each movie -- and that company is specifically designed to lose money. The studio gives that company the production budget (the number you usually see) and then also agrees to pay for marketing and related expenses above and beyond that. Both of those numbers represent (mostly) actual cash outlays from the studio and are reasonable to count as expenses. Then comes the sneaky part: on top of all that, the studios charge the "movie company" a series of fees for other questionable things. Many of these fees involve no real direct expense for the studio, but basically pile a huge expense onto the income statement and ensure that the studio keeps getting all of the movie income -- rather than having to share the profits with key participants -- long after the movie would be considered profitable under regular accounting rules.

 

NPR: We See Angelina's Bottom Line

 

Quote

As a case study, he walks us through the numbers for "Gone In 60 Seconds." (It starred Angelina Jolie and Nicolas Cage. They stole cars. Don't pretend like you don't remember it.)
 

The movie grossed $240 million at the box office. And, after you take out all the costs and fees and everything associated with the movie, it lost $212 million.

 

This is the part of Hollywood accounting that is, essentially, fiction. Disney, which produced the movie, did not lose that money.

 

These are articles about how studios play with their individual movie balance sheets to claim expenses, actors claim salaries not received for negotiation power later on with other movies, or doing all they can to avoid paying royalties.

 

Fun times!