4 ms·
What flops are you referring to? I only know Dreamworks by their feature films, and why they all didn't review highly, they all made money [1] [1] https://en.w
by JTon 10y ago
What flops are you referring to? I only know Dreamworks by their feature films, and why they all didn't review highly, they all made money [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DreamWorks_Animation#Feature_films https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DreamWorks_Animation#Feature_f...
- josh_carterPDX 10y agoAgree. Comcast is gobbling up companies to be a major media company. They'll likely buy up something else, but I don't see Dreamworks being a studio that was making flops. They have a lot of solid movie brands that made a ton of money.
- voltagex_ 10y agoWonder if this is the end of Dreamworks Animation on Netflix.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- searine 10y ago>They all made money This is hollywood. Take the budget, double it, and add 50 million dollars and then you have an accurate idea of the true budget. To be "profitable" the reported boxoffice needs to be at least 3X the budget. For example, Sherman and Mr.Peabody had a budget of "150 million", made 300 million, but dreamworks still lost 57 million making the movie. Known flops of the last two years are : Home, Penguins of Madagascar, Sherman and Mr. Peabody, Turbo, Rise of the Guardians. Only The Croods and HTTYD were profitable.
- tzs 10y agoHow about Kung Fu Panda 3? It did very well in China, and I believe I read that since it was a joint production of DreamWorks Animation and Oriental DreamWorks they ended up getting much more of the Chinese revenue than they would have had it been an all-American production.
- JustSomeNobody 10y agoOf course if you're the star paid a percentage bonus on profit, then take the profit, halve it, subtract 50 million, wash, rinse, repeat until profit is actually in the negative.
- rhino369 10y agoThe issue isn't that the budget is wrong (though it doesn't typically include marketing), it's that box office revenue isn't 100% the distributors. Around 60% goes to the distributor for US box office and as low 25-40% for foreign receipts. So 3X is probably right for a heavily marketed movie, but 2X might cover a less heavily marketed movie. Plus DVD rights, streaming, and broadcast rights do bring in some extra money too.
- rjett 10y agoSee Hollywood Accounting: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/HollywoodAccounting http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/HollywoodA...
- superuser2 10y agoDoesn't that work in the opposite direction? The "true" breakeven point is much lower than what the studios claim, not higher.
- messick 10y agoYes. "Hollywood Accounting" means cooking the books to make a success look like a failure when to comes to paying people (like the IRS) who get a percentage of the profit.
- petra 10y agoHow is it possible ? don't the IRS demand detailed recipts for every expense ? while sales are easily trackable.
- refurb 10y agoThey do have receipts since they own both sides of the transaction. And to be honest, I'm not sure if the IRS cares since the profit gets taxed at some point in time.
- cookiecaper 10y agoWhich, to be clear, is about studios making it appear that they never make a profit so that they can minimize their payout in bonuses, royalties, and taxes.
- jonnathanson 10y agoOne particularly famous example: "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" earned $940M at the worldwide box office, yet Warner Brothers reported the film at a $167M loss on paper. Link with an itemized, Hollywood Accounting-style breakdown: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100708/02510310122.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100708/02510310122.shtml
- neuromancer2701 10y agoRemember this is just the Animation studio. Spielberg still controls the DreamWorks Pictures which has been rolled into Amblin Partners.