That, after all is how newspapers worked until very recently: papers published a lot of journalism that cost more than it was worth, but they believed it was their duty and there was enough profitable stuff to cover the cost.
-
-
Replying to @anomalyuk @CARypple and
I posit that H'wood is not only on the same trajectory as newspapers, but that they are also at or near the same point on the trajectory. Yet: -Newspapers are on life support without hope of recovery -H/wood is surviving, with a fair prognosis The difference is investment.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Stoner_68 @CARypple and
What happened to newspapers is their profitable business went away. Successful films are making more money than ever, and the last couple of years particularly they have got more effective at churning them out in volume.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @anomalyuk @CARypple and
Most films lose money. Many films lose enormous money. A few films are wildly profitable. Can they hold up the whole industry without help?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Stoner_68 @CARypple and
Most of the big movies make money for the movie industry. The studios' notorious accounting practices mean there's generally a pretty small bottom-line number for the film as a whole, but that's after most investors have already taken their profit.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @anomalyuk @CARypple and
These are the investors I refer to. They are inured to risk by utopian dreams and thick cushions of old money. In the absence of consistent profits, their preferences drive the industry, not the market. If investor money ever dries up, the industry will fold overnight.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Stoner_68 @CARypple and
The investors I'm talking about are the big 6 studios themselves, who take their profits partly in their other divisions, via internal accounting for promotion and distribution
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @anomalyuk @Stoner_68 and
The rule of thumb I heard is a movie needs to gross something like 2.5 x production costs to make money. If you look at that list of the most expensive productions, 80% make money, and as many make big money as lose.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @anomalyuk @CARypple and
Don't forget to factor in the dates. The industry was quite different in 2000-2014 as opposed to now. Not many big blockbusters since then, and lots of red ink.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Stoner_68 @CARypple and
Looks like a couple of movies a year lose over 50M, and more than that make 50M. I mentioned my impression they're scaling up the successful franchises more effectively now, but I can't see that (yet) in the data. "Biggest losers" bottom of https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/budgets/
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
What is different is the low budget end. People working for peanuts or investing in losers hoping to make the jump to the big time. Standard tournament economics. Plenty of vanity projects in there too.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.