PDA

View Full Version : Why can't Hollywood make money?


ip_guru
10-07-2003, 05:23 PM
OK, kind of a general rant thread, been meaning to write this for some time.

One thing I read over and over is how ‘those evil Hollywood bastards only want to make money’ or ‘ there they go again only making money’ or ‘there they go only trying to make money, they don’t care about the fans’ ad nauseum.

This irritates me. Hollywood is a business; movie-making is a business. What, do people expect that all the Hollywood studios are going to tell their shareholders: ‘oh we decided to do independent experimental films this year, sorry that your investment is now worthless’.

They have to make money to stay in business. They provide the general population with what the general population wants. There is nothing wrong with Hollywood making Rocky 200 for all I care. So what if they do it to make money - so does every other business in the world.

Commercial movie-making is a business first, an art second. Take away the highly paid stars, and there are thousands of families whose livings depend on the revenue that movies bring in. Hollywood does not exist to provide the general population an artistic experience every time they go to the theater.

The big budget action movies, and franchise films are supposed to make tons of money, so the studios can hopefully survive the losses they encounter on their other films. So, we go see the big budget movies for fun and pure entertainment, and enjoy the smaller more thought-provoking films when they come out. That is how it is supposed to be.

If you don’t like the big budget films, don’t support them. If enough people don’t like them, then they will fade. But, another concept will replace it. Whatever the replacement is, you can be sure that it will be designed to make money.

Let’s look at some numbers (From boxofficemojo.com):
Movie Name – Gross Revenue – Marketing – Production – Net Loss

Life of David Gale – 20M – 25M – 38M – Net loss of 43M (Universal)
Hollywood Homicide – 30M – 30M – 75M – Net loss of 75M (Sony/Revolution)
Biker Boyz – 22M – 18M – 24M – Net loss of 20M (DreamWorks)
Sinbad (7 Seas) – 26M – 30M – 60M – Net loss of 64M (DreamWorks)
Dumb and Dumberer – 26M – 20M – 19M – Net loss of 13M (New Line)
Dreamcatcher – 34M – 25M – 68M – Net loss of 59M (Warner Bros)
LXG – 66M – 30M – 78M – Net loss of 42M (Fox)
Tears of the Sun – 44M – 35M – 75M – Net loss of 66M (Sony)
Head of State – 38M – 27M – 35M – Net loss of 24M (DreamWorks)
Cradle to the Grave – 35M – 25M – 25M – Net loss of 15M (Warner Bros)

So these ten movies lost a total of 421 Million this year. That is close to a half a billion dollars lost. The studios try to withstand these losses to get the occasional major hit that will put cash back in their bank.

You can even take 2 Fast 2 Furious, the 11th highest grossing movie of the year so far: It has pulled in 127M in revenue. Marketing and Production were 116M, so the 11th highest grossing movie has only returned a 10 Million dollar profit on a 116 Million dollar investment. For the financial ones out there, a less than 10 percent return on a 100 Million investment is not good. Is it positive, yes, good no.

The point is that the blockbusters are required. They need the Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Bond, etc… in order to survive the bad times. The studios are not different than most of us, they pick an industry and try to do as well as possible in that industry, don’t hate them for doing the same thing everyone else wants to do. Let them pump out the franchise films, so that we can get an Equilibrium or a Frailty every now and then.

Oh well, rant mode off. I’m sure that many of you will disagree, I hope some agree. I’m not here to change anyone’s mind on this, I’m not going to argue and try to convince. If you intelligently disagree, I can respect that viewpoint.

sunflower03
10-07-2003, 11:46 PM
i agree that the movie studios need to make money, in fact i hate most indepedent films because most of the time they are over praised crap. i like sequels infact i do often look forward sequels. the problem is not that hollywood makes sequels, but a lot of the recent sequels are to movies that should have never had a sequel, such as tomb raider, it was not popular enough to deserve getting a sequel. but the movie made money, so they made a sequel to it anyway. most people don't want a sequel to rocky because it has been done to death, and there is no story left. yet a lot of people are looking forward to the upcoming indiania jones film. i think that the movie studios need to decide better what movies deserve sequels and which movies don't.

OzzMosiz
10-09-2003, 11:11 AM
ip_guru - your list of films that lost - you did not include international takins or consider DVD and TV showings.

Also certain films (Like Superman, Batman etc) require that the premise stays faithful - the fans demand it, and if they get what they want, they go and see it making the studios money in the process. Therefore the studios need to learn not to tinker with such films too much.

Fanible
10-09-2003, 06:12 PM
I essentially agree. It's kinda like an oxy moron really.

Most people's favorite movies and most people consider American films the best films made. Yet we usually bash the "Hollywood" symbol, usually because we get thousands of movies every year, and some of the big advertised titles are sequels and not up to standards in opinion. Yet we still get tons of good movies. But rather just notice all the "bad" that's done and not be appreciative of all the good.

It's almost the same as the constant jab saying how lowsy Microsoft is, and how crappy Windows is... yet majority of all of us use it.

Or maybe the super crapped up insults America gets, a lot by the people living in the freakin country. Saying how bad America is for doing all the stuff it does, either being selfish or a bully. Yet they live comfortably in their free country in their nice quiet suburben home.

The world is always going to see the bad in everything and never the good. It's how it works. And it usually gets summed up with that last final thing about America. Notice how all these things are done and made in America? Quaint, ain't it...

Unfortunatly though, thats how most of the world is as well.

KellyM
10-09-2003, 07:01 PM
you make a good point, but i agree with ozzmosis, mainly on the basis of his 'studios shouldnt tinker too much' but its a kind of 'you can please some people sometimes, but you cant please all the people all the time' and having said that, the real hardcore fanbase for batman type movies etc.. (ie people that love the comics etc) is just a small portion of the audience that the studios need to recoup the big bucks that they lay out. LXG lost 42 mil in the theatres? im trying to comprehend that amout of money, let alone losing it! most of the movies you mentioned, will, in most cases, recoup the money via DVD and video sales. i know i want the big freaked out special edition of LXG when it comes out. :)

ip_guru
10-09-2003, 11:15 PM
I didn't put DVDs, or other license fees in the post because that is a different discussion altogether. Often times the DVD or other license fee is the last hope of even getting close to breaking even on the investment.

Most of the movies that lose alot in the theather don't recoup their losses on DVD or via the license. If LXG was only able to pull in 66M at the theater and lost 42M, they will have a problem on DVD sales.

If the average cost of the DVD is, say 20$ (just for discussion), and if the studio got 100% of the DVD sales (again just for discussion), Fox would have to sell over 2 Million copies of the DVD, just to come close to breaking even on the film.

And, that is assuming that the costs of producing and shipping the DVD is zero. When you consider the percentage that the studio actually gets, along with the costs of developing and marketing the DVD, you can quickly see that there is no hope of ever making a profit on LXG. The same goes from most movies. Is Hollywood Homicide going to sell over 3 Million copies on DVD? Not a chance.

I didn't list international sales on those because mojo didn't have them. This was for a different paper I was writing, and I threw the stats in here quickly. That is a very valid point, there are lots of movies that do better on the international market versus the US. But, that doesn't change the overall point of the post.

The point goes back to the fact that Hollywood absolutely must make the mega movies that pull in one or two hundred million in profit in order to survive. And, there is nothing wrong with them in doing so.

Take Matrix Reloaded. Although enjoyable, I didn't find that movie that good. But, who cares? I hope it keeps making money, and I hope the next one does as well. Because I know that part of that money will go to producing another movie that is much better one day, and I appreciate that.

I think most of the people here like movies, and should be happy that their industry is doing whatever it can to keep producing hundreds and hundreds of movies for us to enjoy each year. I know I do!

sunflower03
10-09-2003, 11:50 PM
i think the majority of posters are happy that the movie industry makes lots of movies every year, and does make lots of good movies every year. also most people know that movie studios need to make money in order to do movie business. the problem is that the movie studios need to adapt to changing tastes in movies, and does need to come up with some original ideas once and a while, just like any business. the studios haven't been doing that in a while and it shows. also the public likes sequels but to movies that are popular enough, or doing a sequel that is actually a good idea.