What actors/filmmakers seem to have more lacklusters than blockbusters

[Horatio_Hellpop]

@JohnT

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.

That’s probably wise. I stand by the meat of my argument, though: Compared to what he did from 1975-1999, his recent output has been more lackluster than blockbuster.

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."

This has another meaning besides the “hide-the-advertising-budget” connotation, a little thing called “opportunity costs.” Spielberg is like a US Savings Bond: You probably won’t lose money, but usually, other investments are more bang for the buck.

[msmith537]

@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”.

I don’t really know how studios are organized as a business. But speaking as an expert in all things business, I can offer my opinion on how I think they might be run. The basic revenue generating project for a studio is their films. So it stands to reason that as much of the expenses as possible should be tied back to a specific film. Even if some studio personal work for the studio on a permenant basis, the studio should try to tie their costs back to a specific film.

So in other words, for a film to really make money, you need to consider the salaries for all the crew and actors on the set as well as some portion that goes to paying for any studio services like the accounting or HR departments.

[Justin_Bailey]

@Krokodil

That’s probably wise. I stand by the meat of my argument, though: Compared to what he did from 1975-1999, his recent output has been more lackluster than blockbuster.

Your argument does not stand up.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was the third highest grossing movie of 2008, just a hair behind Iron Man and well behind the runaway success of The Dark Knight (the second biggest movie ever).

It had a production budget of $185 million, similar to other 2008 movies WALL-E, Quantum of Solace, Prince Caspian and The Incredible Hulk. It outgrossed all of them on the order of 2-to-1. When you add in all the Indiana Jones toys/video games/Lego sets/books that were sold along with the movie, you have what is known in the industry as a “blockbuster”.