The smash hits that 'lost money'

[chasmmi]

I found this interesting to read even if its probably old news to most here:

 

http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/hit-movies-that-lost-money--and-how-they-did-it--165941513.html

[RobinHood26]

-

Edited May 8, 2018 by Jay Hollywood

[baumer]

So lucas is a greedy bastard. Jedi sidnt make any profit? Lol

[Incarnadine]

I'm surprised Forrest Gump wasn't mentioned. $55 mil budget and did $677 mil WW but one of the writers who was supposed to get a % of the net profits had to sue because the studio was claiming it had not made any profit.

I think they settled out of court to avoid having to show their books in open court.

 

Edit- Here's a good read on Forrest Gump and creative Hollywood accounting:

 

http://www.redballoon.net/humor/gump.txt

 

And a few more examples:

 

http://www.creativemovieaccounting.com/examples-of-hollywood-accounting.html

Edited August 2, 2013 by Incarnadine

[ChD]

I think it's all because the studios try to save some money, but in truth, they actually make some profit.

[CJohn]

Harry Potter 5 lost money? Why did WB keep doing those then? Whatever.

Edited August 2, 2013 by CJohn

[CaptainJackSparrow]

HBP was the one with the 250 million dollar production + 155 million in marketing, weird that OOTP didn't make a profit, and no mention of HBP. I highly doubt either lost money.

[baumer]

All films lose money.  That's why executives drive Hyundai's and live in a rented apartment in South Central.

[Hatebox]

That's some really dirty business.

[lilmac]

Harry Potter 5 lost money? Why did WB keep doing those then? Whatever.

 

 

I highly doubt any of the Potter movies lost money.

[Plain Old Tele]

I highly doubt any of the Potter movies lost money.

On paper, they probably all did.

[A Marvel Fanboy]

You know you cant beat Hollywood accounting.   They lose money on every movie if necessary.

[Incarnadine]

You know you cant beat Hollywood accounting.   They lose money on every movie if necessary.

It's always necessary for a movie to lose  money if someone agreed to take a percentage of the net profits rather than the gross.

[mahnamahna]

I'm surprised Forrest Gump wasn't mentioned. $55 mil budget and did $677 mil WW but one of the writers who was supposed to get a % of the net profits had to sue because the studio was claiming it had not made any profit.

I think they settled out of court to avoid having to show their books in open court.

 

Edit- Here's a good read on Forrest Gump and creative Hollywood accounting:

 

http://www.redballoon.net/humor/gump.txt

 

And a few more examples:

 

http://www.creativemovieaccounting.com/examples-of-hollywood-accounting.html

Forrest Gump made a HUGE profit lol... it's the movie that made Tom Hanks flithy rich since he got 10-15% of the gross net profits... He basically got 30 to 40 million for the movie back in 1994. They were just trying to avoid giving them their paycheck 

[Incarnadine]

Forrest Gump made a HUGE profit lol... it's the movie that made Tom Hanks flithy rich since he got 10-15% of the gross net profits... He basically got 30 to 40 million for the movie back in 1994. They were just trying to avoid giving them their paycheck. 

 

That's pretty much the whole reason for creative Hollywood accounting, that and the fact studio executives don't want to have to pay for hookers and blow out of their own pockets.

[vc2002]

I'm glad Fox didn't claim they lost money on Avatar.

 

 

 

Or did they?

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

Gross. How much money do studio execs need? I can't really feel sorry for them when a movie actually does tank hard.

[Lordmandeep]

lol famous example is Cleopatra.

 

It made over 500 million adjusted and it is still seen as a huge flop 

[John Marston]

I am not getting what is the reason for saying things like this

[kowhite]

This article was written by someone who doesn't understand the difference between actual Hollywood accounting and contractual backend reporting.They're not the same thing. That they list that Harry Potter example is telling...that was not a WB balance sheet, nor is it WB saying the film wasnt profitable. In fact, if you know how to read that statement...it's quite obvious Harry Potter made a lot of profit.Net profit has nothing to do with actual studio profits. I should be these people's manager, I could've told that Emily Rose director long before the film came out he wasnt going to make a dime on the backend.That Forrest Gump example? The writer got a net profit deal...these guys need to read their contracts better and hire a manager who understands those deals. That being said, they should always complain cause settlements are nice (even if they rarely have much of any merit). But if you sign a deal saying the studio can charge you a 40% fee on revenue and interest on production costs...plus only give you a percentage of the home video revenue...don't be shocked when the studio does exactly that.

Edited August 11, 2013 by kowhite