John Carter - Page 13 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #361 of 544 Old 03-22-2012, 06:46 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Tulpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 10,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Gary, we weren't talking about tax liability. I don't know why you keep bringing it up as it has nothing to do with the SEC or keeping transparent records.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

Keep in mind that Disney owes NOBODY outside of Disney the Corporation an accurate spreadsheet for John Carter.

That includes Disney shareholders, as it is a public company.

Quote:


It does indeed suck if you are a scriptwriter or producer or actor who own's a piece of the film and you want your fair share - but don't pretend you didn't know how Hollywood works.

Again, I'm aware they screw over creative people this way, but they do NOT screw over their own shareholders, or they will be brought up on charges, they will have their assets seized by the SEC, and the studio WILL be shut down. No way Disney takes a chance on this. If they said they lost their shirts, there is no reason to doubt them.

Don't believe everything on the Interwebz! A duck's quack DOES echo!
Tulpa is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #362 of 544 Old 03-22-2012, 08:55 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by lwright84 View Post

Not in common vernacular though. When someone says "this film costs $100 million to make" or "had a $100 million budget"... 9.5 times out of 10 they are referring solely to production costs and leaving out anything related to marketing, distribution, merchandising, advertising, etc.

Which has nothing to do with reality. There are always marketing and distribution costs associated with a film unless it is so bad that it is never marketed nor released, something that just doesn't happen that frequently.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #363 of 544 Old 03-22-2012, 09:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary McCoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: San Jose, California, USA
Posts: 6,233
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulpa View Post

Gary, we weren't talking about tax liability. I don't know why you keep bringing it up as it has nothing to do with the SEC or keeping transparent records.



That includes Disney shareholders, as it is a public company.



Again, I'm aware they screw over creative people this way, but they do NOT screw over their own shareholders, or they will be brought up on charges, they will have their assets seized by the SEC, and the studio WILL be shut down. No way Disney takes a chance on this. If they said they lost their shirts, there is no reason to doubt them.

You don't seem to understand, they ARE keeping transparent records and they ARE in complete compliance with the law. Furthermore if they didn't do stuff to minimize tax liability, it would be actionable on the part of the shareholders. This is a perfectly legitimate tactic to reduce tax liability, increase corporate profits, and if it wasn't done, the CFO could and should be sacked.

If you want to get right down to it, the expenses for JC were all incurred in 2010 and 2011, and were then written off in Q1 of 2012. Somebody wanted to pay a dividend in Q4 of 2011, and did so by postponing the writeoff for JC. Then they made another clever move and reduced 2012 tax liability. None of this is abnormal, unusual, or unexpected. It's completely transparent. Still, nobody knows what it cost to actually make JC except a few Disney accountants. You can speculate about profits or losses all you want, and just say to the SEC: "Early indications were that...." followed a few months later by "...the film actually made money when these factors were considered."

Gary McCoy
The United States Constitution ©1791. All Rights Reserved.

Gary McCoy is offline  
post #364 of 544 Old 03-22-2012, 09:54 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Tulpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 10,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

You don't seem to understand, they ARE keeping transparent records and they ARE in complete compliance with the law.

Dude, I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE TAX LIABILITY! THEY CAN'T BE CLAIMING THESE HUGE LOSSES IF YOU SAY THE FILM IS IN THE BLACK! I don't care how creative the bookkeeping is, they reported a huge loss on this film and if it wasn't they're in big trouble.

You know what? Forget it. Just forget it. Remind me never to read your posts again.

Don't believe everything on the Interwebz! A duck's quack DOES echo!
Tulpa is offline  
post #365 of 544 Old 03-22-2012, 10:08 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,080
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 182
Im looking forward to watch this on blu ray

_________________________

Frank

Franin is offline  
post #366 of 544 Old 03-22-2012, 11:46 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
How Hollywood Accounting Can Make a $450 Million Movie 'Unprofitable'

Quote:


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.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...itable/245134/
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #367 of 544 Old 03-22-2012, 11:48 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #368 of 544 Old 03-22-2012, 11:49 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:


Historically, Hollywood has changed from a business that derived its money from box office to a business that manufactures intellectual properties. Studios earn 20 percent of their revenues from theatrical distribution and the remaining 80 percent comes across other platforms.

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/articl...ng-magic-15312
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #369 of 544 Old 03-22-2012, 11:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Waboman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Terraforming Planet Wabo
Posts: 6,624
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Liked: 273
More like Barsoom accounting.

Growing Older But Not Up
Waboman is online now  
post #370 of 544 Old 03-23-2012, 04:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,761
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Its easier to make a 100 million dollar movie that gross 400 million to look like a failure, then to make a 250 million dollar movie that gross 150 million to look like a success.

Good movies are as rare as an on topic discussion.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #371 of 544 Old 03-23-2012, 07:47 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Tulpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 10,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

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

In those cases, though, the movie is announced a success, but when the creative people come for their share, the studio goes "Well, I don't know where the money went. Sorry! Hyuck!"

That didn't happen with John Carter. The movie failed, the companies associated with the movie lost money, and Disney lost money. There was no shady accounting, it just failed. It happens.

Don't believe everything on the Interwebz! A duck's quack DOES echo!
Tulpa is offline  
post #372 of 544 Old 03-23-2012, 08:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,761
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulpa View Post

In those cases, though, the movie is announced a success, but when the creative people come for their share, the studio goes "Well, I don't know where the money went. Sorry! Hyuck!"

That didn't happen with John Carter. The movie failed, the companies associated with the movie lost money, and Disney lost money. There was no shady accounting, it just failed. It happens.

And even better, they can "move" the lost money to a part in the company that made some profit and somehow a successful movie makes less money.

Production company A1 pays 100M and Distributioncompany A2 pays 50M.

The movie makes 200M and A1 get 80M and A2 gets 120M.

A1 = -20M, A2 = +70M

Next movie A1 pays 100M and A2 pays 100M. Movie makes 180M. A1 gets 80M A2 gets 100M.

A1 = -20, A2 = 0.

End result
A1 = -40M
A2 = +70M

Big A = 30M
Creative people = 0

Good movies are as rare as an on topic discussion.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #373 of 544 Old 03-23-2012, 08:38 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Tulpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 10,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Yeah, but again, that's a case of the movie making money, but where did it all go? I saw the head of the studio get his share, and the stockholders got theirs, but where's mine?

When a movie loses money like JC did, it's pretty obvious the money went down the drain. Everyone suffers. Some suffer more than others, but everyone gets a bite of the crap sandwich.

Don't believe everything on the Interwebz! A duck's quack DOES echo!
Tulpa is offline  
post #374 of 544 Old 03-23-2012, 09:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Morpheo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Montreal by day, Paris by night...
Posts: 6,468
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 49 Post(s)
Liked: 285
How much (%) does a studio make from international box-office grosses? just curious.
Morpheo is offline  
post #375 of 544 Old 03-23-2012, 09:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,761
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

How much (%) does a studio make from international box-office grosses? just curious.

Depends on what studio we are talking about.

Studios like Warner and Universal has an international distribution, were Lionsgate doesnt and must use local partners.

Good movies are as rare as an on topic discussion.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #376 of 544 Old 03-23-2012, 10:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Morpheo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Montreal by day, Paris by night...
Posts: 6,468
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 49 Post(s)
Liked: 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Depends on what studio we are talking about.

Studios like Warner and Universal has an international distribution, were Lionsgate doesnt and must use local partners.

The "big ones" for instance, like WB, Universal, Fox, Disney...

[edit] speaking of Universal, I don't understand why, if they have an international distribution, they have to distribute their films "via" alliance up here in Canada. Up until recently it wasn't the case, but now more and more of their movies are going the Alliance route, just like Fox actually. These days I see that darn alliance logo everywhere. What's the advantage and/or difference for them, in that case Universal and Fox, while Disney or Warner don't "need" to do it? I'm just thinking out loud here.
Morpheo is offline  
post #377 of 544 Old 03-23-2012, 10:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,761
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Its usually called outsourcing. less risk, less gain. And for smaler countries it could be wise not to run everything yourself. I know that Universal and Paramount used UIP for international sales with a 50/50 ownership. Its now reduced to 18 countries.

Good movies are as rare as an on topic discussion.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #378 of 544 Old 03-23-2012, 10:37 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 19,920
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 143 Post(s)
Liked: 318
Regardless of how Disney plans to write off its taxes or screw over the movie's investors and profit participants, the one thing the studio manifestly does not want to do is create a public perception that its movie (any of its movies) is a bomb. That's all-around bad for business across multiple divisions, both short term and long term.

Kids don't buy action figures or video games for movies that are bombs. They don't watch Disney Channel cartoon spin-offs of movies that are bombs. They don't buy DTV sequels. They don't read the monthly comic book. They don't go to see the theatrical re-release when Disney pulls the movie out of the vault in a decade.

Treasure Planet merchandise was pulled off Toys R Us shelves within a month of that movie's theatrical release. Meanwhile, The Lion King is still a huge money maker decades after the fact.

That's why studio PR departments work so hard to spin every failure into some sort of success. "No, no, the movie actually made a tidy little profit when you count the international receipts. It's not a bomb at all. Really, it did fine."

John Carter has flopped so badly that there's no spin the studio can put on it. They have actually come out and said, "Yeah, we screwed the pooch on this one. This is a massive, massive failure that will cost us hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. We blew it big time."

No studio ever wants to do that, regardless of tax strategies. They are effectively destroying any hope of a long-term revenue stream from the property. It's a PR nightmare. They wouldn't do it unless the reality staring everyone in the face was so clear that they had no choice.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #379 of 544 Old 03-23-2012, 10:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
GoCaboNow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 211
Sheesh, I'm not even going to get the bluray now.

Location: Beaverton, Oregon
My Dedicated Home Theater Room
GoCaboNow is offline  
post #380 of 544 Old 03-23-2012, 10:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary McCoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: San Jose, California, USA
Posts: 6,233
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Yeah, buit it's a little too theoretical for me when they decide to write off 100+ million $ for a John Carter video game that doesn't exist yet, and now will never exist or be released.

I mean I get it, the theatrical showing is 20% of the whole pie. But the movie has only been showing two weeks as of today. There are any number of films that bombed early box office but turned into money generating engines afterwards.

It seems to me, there's nothing really WRONG with this film, except Disney's marketing plan.

Gary McCoy
The United States Constitution ©1791. All Rights Reserved.

Gary McCoy is offline  
post #381 of 544 Old 03-23-2012, 11:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,761
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

There are any number of films that bombed early box office but turned into mooney generating engines afterwards.

Thats usually doesnt happen to CGI action movies. But drama/thrillers with good word of mouth.

Quote:
It seems to me, there's nothing really WRONG with this film, except Disney's marketing plan.

And overdimensioned budget.

Good movies are as rare as an on topic discussion.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #382 of 544 Old 03-23-2012, 11:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jwebb1970's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Visalia, CA
Posts: 8,336
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCaboNow View Post

Having read the books as a kid I had some interest in this. But the trailers, and marketing, had a similar look to Prince of Persia. Just some generic, skinny, teeny bopper running around kicking everyones tail - blah, blah, blah. That's how it looked. With Stanton, I am guessing there is much more substance to this but easy to put aside as crap if you don't know about the books or have faith in Stanton.

For me, it was footage from the JC trailers that, upon first viewing, had me think to myself while paraphrasing SNL-era David Spade - "I really liked these action sequences the 1st time I saw them.....in Attack of the Clones".

Money does not buy happiness. It can, however, buy you a giant boat that you can pull up alongside happiness. - David Lee Roth

jwebb1970 is offline  
post #383 of 544 Old 03-23-2012, 11:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Morpheo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Montreal by day, Paris by night...
Posts: 6,468
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 49 Post(s)
Liked: 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

And overdimensioned budget.

That's the part that's still escapes me. Unless you don't have a big name somewhere attached to the movie, that kind of budget is insane. By big name, I mean someone like Tom Cruise, Johnny Depp, James Cameron, I'm not even sure of Brad Pitt, in other words the very short list of people who can generate revenue with their name alone.

Anyway... it's done now, and this massive blockbuster is a massive failure.
Morpheo is offline  
post #384 of 544 Old 03-23-2012, 12:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,761
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

That's the part that's still escapes me. Unless you don't have a big name somewhere attached to the movie, that kind of budget is insane.

Its insane even with big names. With that much money its easy to be ineffective with your spending.

Good movies are as rare as an on topic discussion.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #385 of 544 Old 03-23-2012, 12:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ron Temple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose CA
Posts: 8,470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 32
How many of you guys that are arguing about how big a flop this is have actually seen the film?

BTW, I was talking to my son last night who works for a 3D conversion shop that bid on JC and lost. He asked me how was the 3D? I said, just ok. That the heavy motion shots were indistinct and backgrounds were sometimes blurry. Said it was probably a cheaper conversion. His company did Transformers and what they sell is expensive, but quality. Frames can cost $10K each easily. (I'm not sure if I should be sharing this )

I don't lurk as much as I used to and I NEVER listen. Comes from being old and cynical.

Ron Temple is offline  
post #386 of 544 Old 03-23-2012, 01:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Morpheo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Montreal by day, Paris by night...
Posts: 6,468
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 49 Post(s)
Liked: 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Temple View Post

How many of you guys that are arguing about how big a flop this is have actually seen the film?

I think arguing is futile at this point.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/...rterofmars.htm

...57 millions after 2 weeks. And today the hunger games is out...

The fact that I'm going to see JC or not doesn't change the fact the it is a big flop. I wasn't interested in seeing it anyway (which brings us back to Disney's marketing...); maybe I'll rent it, maybe.
Morpheo is offline  
post #387 of 544 Old 03-23-2012, 01:21 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
oink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shuloch
Posts: 26,553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Temple View Post

Frames can cost $10K each easily.

Holy Crap!
Is that for conversions or stuff shot natively?

A.P.S. deserve our protection....join the cause today!
oink is offline  
post #388 of 544 Old 03-23-2012, 01:27 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Tulpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 10,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Temple View Post

How many of you guys that are arguing about how big a flop this is have actually seen the film?

Are you suggesting that people are using the poor showing at the box office to imply the film sucks? Because I don't think that's entering the equation.

The marketing is, though, and everyone can see that's been a big misfire.

Don't believe everything on the Interwebz! A duck's quack DOES echo!
Tulpa is offline  
post #389 of 544 Old 03-23-2012, 01:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,761
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Holy Crap!
Is that for conversions or stuff shot natively?

I better be conversion or you gonna se me making 3D for $500/frame.

Good movies are as rare as an on topic discussion.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #390 of 544 Old 03-23-2012, 01:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ron Temple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose CA
Posts: 8,470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Holy Crap!
Is that for conversions or stuff shot natively?

Conversion...I'm told that each frame will vary by depth and effect and thus the cost is a moving target. It's expensive though. In effect, a proper conversion job can look very good up to the limitations of the human eye. Evidently, not all of us can process stereoptic images correctly. So even the best will get varying reviews from an audience. I'm not sure even the industry is sold on the long term benefits of 3D. They just want the short term revenue pie it's bringing in on some features.

I don't lurk as much as I used to and I NEVER listen. Comes from being old and cynical.

Ron Temple is offline  
Reply Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off