Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 3888008" data-attributes="member: 2525">I think if you think the net doesn't matter, then we are not communicating.Let's say a film costs $63M to produce, and $37M to promote, so it costs $100M to make.  It makes  $100M in theater sales, $50M of which goes to the theaters and $50M of which goes to the studio.  So the studio is currently down $50M.  The movie then goes to DVD, and costs $2M to produce and $2M to promote.  It sells 1M copies, with 5% returns, so sells a total of 950K at $10.88 profit each (according to the WGA that is the correct number), for a total profit of $10.3M.  The studio is now down $39.7M on the project, and still owes the writer $64,800 beyond their initial compensation.  The writers are arguing they should instead be paid $129,600 instead at this stage.So yes, it is highly relevant what the net is in this case.  The DVDs are not looked at in a vacuum.  They are part of the entire project, and their profits are a critical element of the entire project.  You cannot just consider the DVDs profit margins without looking at the cost of the movie that is on that DVD.  If you do, you're not getting the full picture.Yeah, and they don't have to be in business either.  Paying those fees is what employs those writers.  I assure you, the writers do not want to see a reduction in those costs - indeed they have said they are in solidarity with the actors and want to see the actors paid more as well.  This is a business, and it is driven by market forces.  Market forces dictate those fees, not the studios.  There really isn't a choice about it.  That is the cost of doing business in this industry right now.The numbers hold true generally speaking below $100M we were just using that as an example.  But you are wrong - small movies are not doing well right now.  Indeed, that is a big complain in Hollywood right now - they are being drowned out by the big movies such that small movies are no longer profitable.This is not a realistic position.  It's no more the decision of the studios than any other industry that is strapped by high costs due to competition.  The studios are not an exception to capitalism - indeed as publicly traded companies they are MORE beholden to market forces than most companies.It is everyone's problem in that industry.  It is the writers problem, and the directors problem, and the actors problem, and everyones problem.  You're view that Producers are just crazy lunatics burning money because they feel like it is really not realistic.  They are all in it together, and all reacting to the same market forces anybody else is reacting to.  It's just people in business.The law of supply and demand actually is the cause.Not really...this was planning done by the Producers along with the Writers and Actors and Directors as well.  They ALL agreed to lump the aftermarket in with the initial showing to assess the value of the project.  If you want to change it to look at DVDs in a vacuum and theatrical releases in a vacuum, I assure you the writer's will be rapidly unemployed and out of business.  They don't want the thing you seem to be advocating.  It is not in anybody's best interest.  They just want more fees on the DVDs - not to separate the DVDs from the theatrical numbers.I'm sorry you feel that way.  If you have some proof that my cause and effect is backwards, please link to it.  I'd love to see something that says that market forces were not the cause of increased production and advertising costs on movies.</blockquote>

Verification