Comments on: Hollywood Profitability Graph

By: JTJR

JTJR — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 17:05:35 +0000

No, you are not. Theaters generally do not profit from tickets sales. They are glorified snack vendors.

By: Marko Shovljanski

Marko Shovljanski — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 00:53:26 +0000

http://thehollywoodeconomist.blogspot.com/2010/07/hollywood-accounting-demystified.html
http://thehollywoodeconomist.blogspot.com/2010/06/eyes-wide-shut.html

some possible clues….

By: billyshakes1492

billyshakes1492 — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 02:32:29 +0000

they said the same thing for waterworld….

By: jez

jez — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:10:22 +0000

The joys of working out if a film has made money or not.

“Distribution and exhibitor deals are done behind closed doors on a film by film basis.”

“But both sides also want the biggest share of the box office take possible. According to industry estimates in the UK, that typically means around 55% going to the exhibitor and 45% to the distributor. In the US, where there is an oversupply of screens, the percentages are reversed.”

Here’s a good article about it. In 2008 the largest cinema chain in the uk refused to show rambo 4 supposedly due to the deal the distributor wanted with the exhibitor:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2008/mar/07/1

By: Ciaran

Ciaran — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 21:24:45 +0000

Am I right in thinking the studio only gets about 50% of the reported gross (with the theaters taking the other half) so break even would be more like 400%?

By: edwardh

edwardh — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:32:01 +0000

Or… “enough” of a profit. Because if one reads comments of various media producers (this does not only apply to movies) carefully, one should notice that companies will frequently not refer to whether something “has been profitable” but whether it “has been profitable enough”.
Also with the “bombing” of movies – I find that that is said pretty much about anything that doesn’t make people stream into theaters like crazy. Just take the often-cited bomb of recent decades: “Waterworld”. That actually had a profitability of 150%. While it may not have made a profit, a “bomb” is something very different in my view. Like “Mars Needs Moms”. Now there is a bomb.

One should also take note of how many movies in this graph were profitable. At least two thirds.
And also how the profitability takes off in the highest quarter. Puts it into perspective when some PR people either say that the movie industry would be in bad shape or that they simply “can’t” pay artists more.
Reminds me of another kind of graph I would find even more interesting: Where do the profits go? What percentage is reinvested, what percentage is paid out in bonuses to management and such and what percentage is diverted “elsewhere” (as it is well-known that not all capital that benefits individuals is distributed transparently)?