# What actors/filmmakers seem to have more lacklusters than blockbusters **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [April 18, 2009, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-actors-filmmakers-seem-to-have-more-lacklusters-than-blockbusters/493493 "2009-04-18T02:11:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2009, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-actors-filmmakers-seem-to-have-more-lacklusters-than-blockbusters/493493/41 "2009-04-20T17:07:27Z")
> [@Hampshire](#): > > M. Night Shyamalan. > Had his 15 minutes with The Sixth Sense and it’s been downhill ever since. > And he still gets Hollywood A-listers to be in his films??? > After 2 absolute duds in a row (Lady in the Water / The Happening) I’m surprised he’s still getting work writing and directing The Last Airbender. As with Bay, people need to stop confusing box office success with their assessment of the quality of the director. Except for Lady in the Water every one of Shyamalan’s major films has been a hit though none as big as Sixth Sense of course. The Happening cost 48m and made 163m worldwide. The Village cost 60 and made 256 worldwide. ---
**Author:** ![Horatio\_Hellpop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Horatio\_Hellpop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatio_Hellpop)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-actors-filmmakers-seem-to-have-more-lacklusters-than-blockbusters/493493/42 "2009-04-21T00:54:04Z")
> [@commasense](#): > > **Krokodil** : You haven’t shown the whole picture, have you? You might not have thought much of those films, and they didn’t all have the glitz or the huge grosses of some of Speilberg’s earlier films, but let’s look at how much those seven films earned worldwide, not just how much they cost: > > ```auto > > Title Budget Gross Net > Indiana Jones/Crystal Skull $185 $ 787 $ 602 > Munich $ 70 $ 130 $ 60 > War of the Worlds $132 $ 592 $ 460 > The Terminal $ 60 $ 219 $ 159 > Catch Me If You Can $ 52 $ 352 $ 300 > Minority Report $102 $ 358 $ 256 > Artificial Intelligence $100 $ 236 $ 136 > Total $671 $2,674 $2,003 > > ``` > > So those seven films have grossed four times their production budgets. The rule of thumb in Hollywood is that after a film doubles its budget it’s in the black. By this measure, only Munich hasn’t “broken even,” and taken altogether, they have generated $1.33 billion in “profit.” > > And this is before you take into account DVD sales, revenues from cable TV, merchandise, or the myriad other ancillary revenue streams. See, here’s why I can’t understand Hollywood accounting. You skipped a column. “Budget” refers to the amount of money it takes to make a film. “Gross” is box office, foreign and domestic (DVD sales and other media are ongoing and, as you noted, rate a separate column); “Net” is the gross minus taxes and theater overhead. None of these columns accounts for advertising, which is usually as expensive as the actual production. Often, it’s even more. The only times in history that a film has made what we laymen refer to as “profit,” it did freakishly huge box office beyond what was anticipated. For Steven Spielberg, that means **Jaws, Close Encounters, ET** and the first _Indiana Jones_ movie. The usual response to this is to generate additional in-house expenses to gobble up the difference. Spielberg’s best 70s and 80s films stymied this effort. Every film on your chart deserves to have a little asterisk next to every number. ---
**Author:** ![Moirai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/96bed5/32.png) [@Moirai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moirai)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-actors-filmmakers-seem-to-have-more-lacklusters-than-blockbusters/493493/43 "2009-04-21T00:56:25Z")
> [@johnspartan](#): > > Ben Affleck’s had a row of seemingly stinkers going back to _Gigli_ and maybe even before. He may have redeemed himself with _State of Play_- it is getting pretty decent reviews so far. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-actors-filmmakers-seem-to-have-more-lacklusters-than-blockbusters/493493/44 "2009-04-21T01:14:39Z")
> [@johnspartan](#): > > Someone needs to stop putting Dane Cook in movies. Honestly there ought to be a law. > > Ben Affleck’s had a row of seemingly stinkers going back to _Gigli_ and maybe even before. Dane Cook was ok as Steve Carrells brother in Dan in Real Life. Not really a blockbuster type movie though. He can’t carry a film though. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-actors-filmmakers-seem-to-have-more-lacklusters-than-blockbusters/493493/45 "2009-04-21T01:35:08Z")
> [@](#): > > Actually, at least up until recently, Woody Allen’s films never lost money. Allen keeps a tight eye on expenses and rarely uses expensive effects. The actors usually work for scale (he’s so well regarded that they’re happy to), and he is very popular outside the US. You’ll note that he has had the same producers throughout his career, Jack Rollins and Charles Joffe; that’s because he consistently makes money for them. > > Take his latest. Vicky Cristina Barcelona cost about $15 million; it grossed $23 million in the US alone. It looks like about another $4 million in the UK and about $2 million in Brazil. Add other countries, and it makes a nice profit. > > Match Point cost $15 million and made about the same amount; Scoop cost $5 million and made twice that. > > All these made big profits on expenses even before the video was released. > > Other than Annie Hall, none of his films have been blockbuster hits, but his films nearly always made money. Kevin Smith is the same way. All of his movies have made a profit. The real secret to a successful filmmaking career isn’t trying to figure out how to make all of your movies into $250,000,000 blockbusters. The secret is realizing that pretty much any halfway decent movie makes at least ten or twenty million dollars so if you spend less than that you’re always going to make a profit. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-actors-filmmakers-seem-to-have-more-lacklusters-than-blockbusters/493493/46 "2009-04-21T01:57:59Z")
> [@Student\_Driver](#): > > Reminds me of similar things I’ve read about Roger Corman, Kevin Smith, and John Waters. Their films may never be blockbusters, but still turn a decent profit since they make relatively inexpensive films. I watched Smith speaking to an audience on some show, and he was quite honestly the most disgusting, vile pig-man I have ever had the misfortune to watch speak, or do anything. I find it hard to believe the guy has a wife. But it’s funny… in talking about his movies, really only two things stood out; he doesn’t really know many words beyond “fuck” and “shit,” and he’s budget-conscious. He clearly was concerned about where the money was going. Save a few hundred bucks staying in a motel instead of renting trailers? Stay in the motel. The bottom line was always in mind. Some people in the movie biz, not so much. > [@](#): > > I think Madonna might fit the bill. You win the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-actors-filmmakers-seem-to-have-more-lacklusters-than-blockbusters/493493/47 "2009-04-21T02:48:23Z")
> [@joebuck20](#): > > Sylvester Stallone since about 1985. I don’t think he’s had a $100 million grosser since Rocky IV. I thought both of Stallone’s recent returns to his classic days were quite good, Rocky and Rambo. I’d be fairly certain they made a healthy profit, and the former of the two, at least, was positively reviewed. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-actors-filmmakers-seem-to-have-more-lacklusters-than-blockbusters/493493/48 "2009-04-21T02:53:50Z")
> [@Krokodil](#): > > See, here’s why I can’t understand Hollywood accounting. You skipped a column. > > “Budget” refers to the amount of money it takes to make a film. “Gross” is box office, foreign and domestic (DVD sales and other media are ongoing and, as you noted, rate a separate column); “Net” is the gross minus taxes and theater overhead. > > None of these columns accounts for advertising, which is usually as expensive as the actual production. Often, it’s even more. > > The only times in history that a film has made what we laymen refer to as “profit,” it did freakishly huge box office beyond what was anticipated. For Steven Spielberg, that means **Jaws, Close Encounters, ET** and the first _Indiana Jones_ movie. The usual response to this is to generate additional in-house expenses to gobble up the difference. Spielberg’s best 70s and 80s films stymied this effort. > > Every film on your chart deserves to have a little asterisk next to every number. Krok, if the only films to ever make money are the four you listed, why is there even an industry? :rolleyes: Gotta tell you, I can’t take financial arguments very seriously from somebody who just 30-odd posts ago claimed that Spielberg didn’t make any money for anybody this decade and that he had no “runaway hits”. Even if you double the films budgets (to account for P&A), it’s patently obvious that Spielberg made tons of moolah on his films this decade. And had you read closer, you would’ve seen that **commasense’s** post did take P&A into account, which is where (s)he got the $1.3 billion in profit in the following line: > [@](#): > > So those seven films have grossed four times their production budgets. **The rule of thumb in Hollywood is that after a film doubles its budget it’s in the black. By this measure, only Munich hasn’t “broken even,” and taken altogether, they have generated $1.33 billion in “profit.”** ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-actors-filmmakers-seem-to-have-more-lacklusters-than-blockbusters/493493/49 "2009-04-21T03:02:49Z")
> [@Krokodil](#): > > See, here’s why I can’t understand Hollywood accounting. You skipped a column. > > “Budget” refers to the amount of money it takes to make a film. “Gross” is box office, foreign and domestic (DVD sales and other media are ongoing and, as you noted, rate a separate column); “Net” is the gross minus taxes and theater overhead. > > None of these columns accounts for advertising, which is usually as expensive as the actual production. Often, it’s even more. > > The only times in history that a film has made what we laymen refer to as “profit,” it did freakishly huge box office beyond what was anticipated. For Steven Spielberg, that means **Jaws, Close Encounters, ET** and the first _Indiana Jones_ movie. The usual response to this is to generate additional in-house expenses to gobble up the difference. Spielberg’s best 70s and 80s films stymied this effort. > > Every film on your chart deserves to have a little asterisk next to every number. You are correct that Hollywood accounting is notoriously cryptic and arcane. However, in the section of my post you quoted I mentioned the rule of thumb that when the gross is twice the budget the film is considered to be “in the black.” It is a rough estimate, but it generally takes into account the theaters’ take and P&A (prints and advertising). Note, also, that I put the word “profit” in quotes, to indicate that I wasn’t using it in its ordinary sense. I would have been happy to include P&A costs in my table, but I don’t happen to know of an online source for those numbers, whereas the budget and grosses are easily available from [Box Office Mojo](http://www.boxofficemojo.com/). Finally, I believe it’s rare for an advertising budget to be greater than the production budget. I seem to recall that the norm for P&A is about 40% of the budget, but I could be wrong about that. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-actors-filmmakers-seem-to-have-more-lacklusters-than-blockbusters/493493/50 "2009-04-21T03:05:18Z")
Keep in mind there’s a difference between real world accounting and studio accounting. For example, they include money they pay to themselves as “expenses” so that comes off the “profits”. That’s like me running a business and I telling everybody I haven’t made a profit in the last ten years because the expenses of my business were higher than what I took in. If they ask me how I keep the business going, I explain I just make up the difference out of the $200,000 annual salary I pay myself. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-actors-filmmakers-seem-to-have-more-lacklusters-than-blockbusters/493493/51 "2009-04-22T02:06:52Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Keep in mind there’s a difference between real world accounting and studio accounting. For example, they include money they pay to themselves as “expenses” so that comes off the “profits”. > > That’s like me running a business and I telling everybody I haven’t made a profit in the last ten years because the expenses of my business were higher than what I took in. If they ask me how I keep the business going, I explain I just make up the difference out of the $200,000 annual salary I pay myself. Um…that is real world accounting. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-actors-filmmakers-seem-to-have-more-lacklusters-than-blockbusters/493493/52 "2009-04-22T02:14:57Z")
Specifically, the salaries the studio pays themselves and their employees are considered Expenses in the Income Statment and not part of the Net Income. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-actors-filmmakers-seem-to-have-more-lacklusters-than-blockbusters/493493/53 "2009-04-22T02:24:12Z")
By “real world” I mean the common sense understanding of how things work. Most people are going to understand there is a difference between an expense like paying somebody else rent or a heating bill and paying yourself a salary. ---
**Author:** ![Moirai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/96bed5/32.png) [@Moirai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moirai)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-actors-filmmakers-seem-to-have-more-lacklusters-than-blockbusters/493493/54 "2009-04-22T13:54:47Z")
We have a small business, and paying ourselves is an expense, just like any other. Do you honestly think that in the “real world” people only pay themselves out of pure profit? No way- payroll is part of the cost of doing business, even if you’re the boss. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-actors-filmmakers-seem-to-have-more-lacklusters-than-blockbusters/493493/55 "2009-04-22T14:35:55Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > By “real world” I mean the common sense understanding of how things work. Most people are going to understand there is a difference between an expense like paying somebody else rent or a heating bill and paying yourself a salary. Well…those people understand incorrectly. Not sure what else I can tell you. ---
**Author:** ![Justin\_Bailey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justin_bailey/32/8792_2.png) [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-actors-filmmakers-seem-to-have-more-lacklusters-than-blockbusters/493493/56 "2009-04-22T14:43:23Z")
> [@EJsGirl](#): > > We have a small business, and paying ourselves is an expense, just like any other. Do you honestly think that in the “real world” people only pay themselves out of pure profit? No way- payroll is part of the cost of doing business, even if you’re the boss. But those expenses should be pegged to the studio as a whole, not to specific movies, which is one of the many tricks of the thing people refer to as “studio accounting”. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-actors-filmmakers-seem-to-have-more-lacklusters-than-blockbusters/493493/57 "2009-04-22T14:43:39Z")
I’d say if you see no essential difference between the money that ends up in your wallet and the money that ends up in somebody else’s wallet you’re getting too abstract in your economics. ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-actors-filmmakers-seem-to-have-more-lacklusters-than-blockbusters/493493/58 "2009-04-22T14:55:15Z")
I think one of the problems with Hollywood accounting is that, because many participants, such as mid-level stars, are given “net points,” i.e. a percentage of the film’s profits after all “expenses” have been paid, the studio has an incentive to cook the books to make sure that expenses are inflated. This can include, as **Justin\_Bailey** points out, adding in salaries of people whose pay should be amortized across the entire studio, or inflating, after the fact, the “above the line” salaries of other participants. As a result, many hugely successful films have been claimed by the studios never to have made a profit. The really important people get “gross points,” not net points. It’s harder to monkey around with them. ---
**Author:** ![Moirai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/96bed5/32.png) [@Moirai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moirai)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-actors-filmmakers-seem-to-have-more-lacklusters-than-blockbusters/493493/59 "2009-04-22T15:47:00Z")
> [@Justin\_Bailey](#): > > But those expenses should be pegged to the studio as a whole, not to specific movies, which is one of the many tricks of the thing people refer to as “studio accounting”. Huh, that’s possible, I guess. I always assumed that most folks on a movie were hired for each specific production, rather than working full time for a studio, which would mean (to me, anyway) that their salary would be tied to the budget of the film. Isn’t that the case? ---
**Author:** ![MadTheSwine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MadTheSwine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MadTheSwine)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-actors-filmmakers-seem-to-have-more-lacklusters-than-blockbusters/493493/60 "2009-04-22T16:03:48Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > I disagree - it features Leo DiCaprio’s finest performance, by far. I wish he’d work with Spielberg again, but apparently Marty Scorsese called dibs. I agree with your disagreement,that movie really changed my opinion of DiCaprio,I even stopped calling him DiCraprio. I didn’t look at any numbers but how bout Samuel Jackson? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-actors-filmmakers-seem-to-have-more-lacklusters-than-blockbusters/493493.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-actors-filmmakers-seem-to-have-more-lacklusters-than-blockbusters/493493.md?page=4)