I wonder what JK Rowling gets up front for those movies. Assuming her agents are too smart to take any backend deal.
John No
Winston Groom wrote Forrest Gump and got swindled by the studios into a net points deal. on the same movie, T. Hanks took no salary and made about 40 mil on gross points. Mr. Grooms reported got 300,000 for movie rights and a bad taste in his mouth for movie studio crooks. research what Clive Cussler got for “Raise the Titanic.” And the studios say movie piracy is killing them! Pay your talent you crooks!
scotch
She’s not getting this type of net profits statement. She’s no doubt getting paid based on gross and a simplified deduction by the studio that she’ll still have to audit to make sure it’s accurate.
J
She gets gross.
SODDI
J.K.Rowling gets 75% of what her publisher got for the subsidiary rights – that 75% will be deducted from the advance against royalties that she got for the book. Of course, her publisher is playing this game too, and her book may never earn out and she may never see dollar one from the movie rights…
j
Gross points, I mean.
oz
Interestingly there’s no gross participation according to the line item. But the “negatrive cost/advance” goes up each period. hmmm…
Jeff
We are auditing another big studio for similar situation. Its out of control and there needs to me more oversight.
Anthony
MGM Television still owes me foreign residuals on a show that sold 22 eps but only paid me for 12. And I was All Shows Produced.
BearerOfBadNews
MGM owes you money? See that ridiculously long line over there to the left? Join it.
Mark
do SAG and WGA etc get residuals from this film franchise?
MonkeyPoints
SAG and WGA always get residuals IF it’s a SAG and WGA film. Their participation is on a different basis.
And, BTW, the first “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles,” which cost just about NOTHING to make, didn’t turn a profit either, according to New Line. Lying bastards.
Wait, so Paramount and Warner’s(close) are both reporting a BILLION dollars in profits, but a movie that made almost $1B is not producing net profits???
Who’s in charge over there?
Scotch
They’re reporting a billion in 2010 domestic box office GROSS – not profits.
Lytton Strachey
If Warner Brothers let the film show a profit they have failed as a studio.
anonymous
Where the hell is SAG is any of this? Why isn’t there a class action suit against the parent company Time/Warner – Hit ’em where it hurts… the stockholders! If the stock falls 10%, its a helluva lot more than what they would have to pay out. Yes, audits are expensive, but if the FBI came in, I guarantee the bean counters would spill like a mafia hitman and Time/Warner would take a gigantic hit for all of the profits they would have to pay back… I know. Dream on. But things change. Its about time someone challenged these crooks once and for all.
Tom
Hey Mike,
Why are you singling out Warner Bros. as ‘phony baloney accounting’?
There is a long history of studio accounting practices and various lawsuits challenging the process.
And guess what Mike, rarely IF EVER do the studios lose.
Nice to see some numbers regarding Harry, but this story about studio accounting is very old news, indeed.
Doc
It maybe old news, but I have never seen a profit and loss statement before, and it is a safe bet I am not unique. Single out WB? He specifically mentions Paramount as well. Did you not read till the end before calling out the blogger?
Skeptic
It’s a wonder the poor studios can stay in business.
Uncle Jim
Clearly they are in the business of money laundering, and have been since the beginning. Why do you think Joe kennedy invested in RKO back during Prohibition? To bang Gloria Swanson? That was a fringe benefit.
Same thing going on today. Will untill someone with a spine faces down these crooks.
The Clintidote
They’re obviously using democRat accountants. ‘Rats hate profits.
Tilted Sideways
Either that or corRuptlican accountants. Rupts just love to hate.
man of honor
I can assure you that WB and ALL THE REST NEVER EVER EVER EVER show a net profit.
I will prove it —- get your hands on ‘The Hangover’ profit/loss sheet. It shows a loss.
The Guilds don’t give a shit.
Anon
The Guilds?!!
Not only don’t they give a shit but they assist the studios is stealing. They get the real numbers but won’t share them with their own members because they are “confidential.”
What a fuckin’ joke they are.
Not a loony
Really? Why would the guilds be given the numbers in the first place if these nefarious dealings were going on? Seriously, this made me laugh out loud and I had a terrible day. Thank you!
Well here’s the problem…they released it on video cassette (line 9 under DEFINED GROSS). Hasn’t Warner Bros heard about DVDs???
Anonymous
How could releasing to video tape be the problem? if it earned 86 million? Moron. The reason these companies get away with these things is that idiots like you, distract the focus away from the real issues. ($211 Mil for distribution, 130 Mil – P&A and 315 Mil – UNKNOWN)
Anthony
You bet your buttocks The WB Studios knows DVD. Hell, they fucked Warren Lieberfarb, the Warner exec who practically created the DVD business model, out of his job a few years ago.
They’re probably sittin’ back with Bewkes and counting that loot.
jasonTHX
I thought the last film released on VHS was David Cronenberg’s “A History Of Violence”. I’m pretty sure that any HP movie since the first one wasn’t released on VHS.
WOW!!! That’s all that can be said… And these are the guys that don’t want to pay the talent and
crew…
Mike W
They don’t usually pay the crew in net points. Even extras will simply get handed a check for $100. The people that they are screwing is investors and actors who accept contracts with net points (percentage of the PROFIT). Most big-name actors accept only gross points, which is a percentage of the REVENUE, not the profit, which is all but impossible to hide without doing something illegal.
Tom
Mike. What you say about paying the crew in net points is true but the studios use these numbers when they go to the table to make the deals with the Unions for pay and fringes. They have always said that they are broke and need to take something away from the previous contract because they are not making any profit because of the outragious labor costs! They always point to these Numbers!
P&A Guy
WOW. The amount of money spent on P&A needs to drastically drop or movies will never be profitable!!!
Anonymous
They are profitable. This shows it. The companies simply shift money within themselves to make them appear not.
Barnes78
Agreed. I’m a bit shocked the number is that high. I mean…hello, this is the fourth sequel in the series. The fact that it exists should pretty much speak for itself, no? Audience interest, at this point, is already built in and obvious, why invest that much $$ in to advertising and publicity?
cas127
Why invest that much in P&A, needlessly?
Simple – To siphon off (to a sibling broadcasting/cable subsidiary) revenue that would otherwise fall to the net profit bottom line.
I would *love* to see what kind of CPM’s were charged to the sibling theatrical subsidiary – my guess is that they had to be insanely high or the month of Phoenix’s release in the US would have been non-stop Potter commercials…which it wasn’t…
Mike W
They’re paying that much because they’re paying it to themselves. The studios own TV networks, where they run the ads. Since it’s going in back in their pocket, it’s not surprising that they wouldn’t bat an eye at spending a million dollars on a single 3am spot, especially not when it means that they take away from the bottom line, which is where they pay net points from.
Anonymous
I guess you’re not getting it.. They paying that to partner network companies, or to themselves.. 20th Century Fox might pay Fox television network a ton of money to advertise the movie.. or maybe they pay it to themselves to have it shown as a preview at the beginning of other movies.. Either way, they keep the money and the movie shows a loss, so they can complain that illegal downloaders are taking away all of their profit, and they also don’t have to pay any profit sharing money to the actors etc in the movie.. Their advertising divisions sit back and rake in all of the money, and somehow the execs upstairs continue to decide to make movies even though the poor old studios are bleeding money like crazy for making them.. They don’t like to mention that they’re bleeding all that money into their own advertising departments or partner companies that agree to bleed their own money back..
I wonder what JK Rowling gets up front for those movies. Assuming her agents are too smart to take any backend deal.
Winston Groom wrote Forrest Gump and got swindled by the studios into a net points deal. on the same movie, T. Hanks took no salary and made about 40 mil on gross points. Mr. Grooms reported got 300,000 for movie rights and a bad taste in his mouth for movie studio crooks. research what Clive Cussler got for “Raise the Titanic.” And the studios say movie piracy is killing them! Pay your talent you crooks!
She’s not getting this type of net profits statement. She’s no doubt getting paid based on gross and a simplified deduction by the studio that she’ll still have to audit to make sure it’s accurate.
She gets gross.
J.K.Rowling gets 75% of what her publisher got for the subsidiary rights – that 75% will be deducted from the advance against royalties that she got for the book. Of course, her publisher is playing this game too, and her book may never earn out and she may never see dollar one from the movie rights…
Gross points, I mean.
Interestingly there’s no gross participation according to the line item. But the “negatrive cost/advance” goes up each period. hmmm…
We are auditing another big studio for similar situation. Its out of control and there needs to me more oversight.
MGM Television still owes me foreign residuals on a show that sold 22 eps but only paid me for 12. And I was All Shows Produced.
MGM owes you money? See that ridiculously long line over there to the left? Join it.
do SAG and WGA etc get residuals from this film franchise?
SAG and WGA always get residuals IF it’s a SAG and WGA film. Their participation is on a different basis.
And, BTW, the first “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles,” which cost just about NOTHING to make, didn’t turn a profit either, according to New Line. Lying bastards.
Wait, so Paramount and Warner’s(close) are both reporting a BILLION dollars in profits, but a movie that made almost $1B is not producing net profits???
Who’s in charge over there?
They’re reporting a billion in 2010 domestic box office GROSS – not profits.
If Warner Brothers let the film show a profit they have failed as a studio.
Where the hell is SAG is any of this? Why isn’t there a class action suit against the parent company Time/Warner – Hit ’em where it hurts… the stockholders! If the stock falls 10%, its a helluva lot more than what they would have to pay out. Yes, audits are expensive, but if the FBI came in, I guarantee the bean counters would spill like a mafia hitman and Time/Warner would take a gigantic hit for all of the profits they would have to pay back… I know. Dream on. But things change. Its about time someone challenged these crooks once and for all.
Hey Mike,
Why are you singling out Warner Bros. as ‘phony baloney accounting’?
There is a long history of studio accounting practices and various lawsuits challenging the process.
And guess what Mike, rarely IF EVER do the studios lose.
Nice to see some numbers regarding Harry, but this story about studio accounting is very old news, indeed.
It maybe old news, but I have never seen a profit and loss statement before, and it is a safe bet I am not unique. Single out WB? He specifically mentions Paramount as well. Did you not read till the end before calling out the blogger?
It’s a wonder the poor studios can stay in business.
Clearly they are in the business of money laundering, and have been since the beginning. Why do you think Joe kennedy invested in RKO back during Prohibition? To bang Gloria Swanson? That was a fringe benefit.
Same thing going on today. Will untill someone with a spine faces down these crooks.
They’re obviously using democRat accountants. ‘Rats hate profits.
Either that or corRuptlican accountants. Rupts just love to hate.
I can assure you that WB and ALL THE REST NEVER EVER EVER EVER show a net profit.
I will prove it —- get your hands on ‘The Hangover’ profit/loss sheet. It shows a loss.
The Guilds don’t give a shit.
The Guilds?!!
Not only don’t they give a shit but they assist the studios is stealing. They get the real numbers but won’t share them with their own members because they are “confidential.”
What a fuckin’ joke they are.
Really? Why would the guilds be given the numbers in the first place if these nefarious dealings were going on? Seriously, this made me laugh out loud and I had a terrible day. Thank you!
Well here’s the problem…they released it on video cassette (line 9 under DEFINED GROSS). Hasn’t Warner Bros heard about DVDs???
How could releasing to video tape be the problem? if it earned 86 million? Moron. The reason these companies get away with these things is that idiots like you, distract the focus away from the real issues. ($211 Mil for distribution, 130 Mil – P&A and 315 Mil – UNKNOWN)
You bet your buttocks The WB Studios knows DVD. Hell, they fucked Warren Lieberfarb, the Warner exec who practically created the DVD business model, out of his job a few years ago.
They’re probably sittin’ back with Bewkes and counting that loot.
I thought the last film released on VHS was David Cronenberg’s “A History Of Violence”. I’m pretty sure that any HP movie since the first one wasn’t released on VHS.
Just a made up reason for WB to claim more loss.
To clarify —
The point I was making is that studios are so out of it they are still using a profit/loss statement written before the advent of DVDs (c. 1993).
Pretty much explains how they missed out on capitalizing on the web. They make their profit there by just not paying the creatives.
WOW!!! That’s all that can be said… And these are the guys that don’t want to pay the talent and
crew…
They don’t usually pay the crew in net points. Even extras will simply get handed a check for $100. The people that they are screwing is investors and actors who accept contracts with net points (percentage of the PROFIT). Most big-name actors accept only gross points, which is a percentage of the REVENUE, not the profit, which is all but impossible to hide without doing something illegal.
Mike. What you say about paying the crew in net points is true but the studios use these numbers when they go to the table to make the deals with the Unions for pay and fringes. They have always said that they are broke and need to take something away from the previous contract because they are not making any profit because of the outragious labor costs! They always point to these Numbers!
WOW. The amount of money spent on P&A needs to drastically drop or movies will never be profitable!!!
They are profitable. This shows it. The companies simply shift money within themselves to make them appear not.
Agreed. I’m a bit shocked the number is that high. I mean…hello, this is the fourth sequel in the series. The fact that it exists should pretty much speak for itself, no? Audience interest, at this point, is already built in and obvious, why invest that much $$ in to advertising and publicity?
Why invest that much in P&A, needlessly?
Simple – To siphon off (to a sibling broadcasting/cable subsidiary) revenue that would otherwise fall to the net profit bottom line.
I would *love* to see what kind of CPM’s were charged to the sibling theatrical subsidiary – my guess is that they had to be insanely high or the month of Phoenix’s release in the US would have been non-stop Potter commercials…which it wasn’t…
They’re paying that much because they’re paying it to themselves. The studios own TV networks, where they run the ads. Since it’s going in back in their pocket, it’s not surprising that they wouldn’t bat an eye at spending a million dollars on a single 3am spot, especially not when it means that they take away from the bottom line, which is where they pay net points from.
I guess you’re not getting it.. They paying that to partner network companies, or to themselves.. 20th Century Fox might pay Fox television network a ton of money to advertise the movie.. or maybe they pay it to themselves to have it shown as a preview at the beginning of other movies.. Either way, they keep the money and the movie shows a loss, so they can complain that illegal downloaders are taking away all of their profit, and they also don’t have to pay any profit sharing money to the actors etc in the movie.. Their advertising divisions sit back and rake in all of the money, and somehow the execs upstairs continue to decide to make movies even though the poor old studios are bleeding money like crazy for making them.. They don’t like to mention that they’re bleeding all that money into their own advertising departments or partner companies that agree to bleed their own money back..