Is the studio system breaking?

and fox searchlight is fox, what's your point? new line was on the list here

I have a Sonygate Thread if you want to discuss some topics.

Disney had a ridiculously good year and Sony/Paramount had really bad year.

The thing is, I'm genuinely not sure whether it's a one-off or a structural change in the industry. Disney is succeeding by, essentially, backing a few brands (Marvel, Disney Animation, Pixar, live-action Disney remakes, Star Wars) which do big business. Is this the permanent future of major studios that do tentpoles, or will they wane in popularity and will something else take over?

Plus Paramount and Sony both sat out two of their heavy hitter franchises this summer (Mission Impossible/Transformers, Bond/Spider-Man).

they're just merged with wb now, unlike in 2015.

Still less Jewish than the other major studios.

well yeah they're not making any shekels, they're an insult to the name

>Disney
>13 movies
>25.2%

>Warner Bros.
>28 movies
>17.4%

JUST

There's only one loser this year, and it ain't Sony. It's Paramount.

>Paramount bleeding money like crazy

Is this it? Will one of the big six fade away?

Studio system is unbreakable.
stop spreading that bullshit, weren't you guys around on the 1960s to see the crisis?

Weinstein Co. isn't making any money.

Harvey Weinstein is rolling in dough though.

>A24
glorious

Fuck Sony. I hope they go bankrupt.

>Kubo that low
You assholes. Why didn't you support this movie!

Not enough quips tbqh

>Egypt flopped
>Beyond flopped
>Kubo flopped
It's a travesty

>Buena Vista #1
based Disney anti-semites

Hopefully.
A few more flops till the end end year and studios will start collapsing.

Lucas and Spielberg predicted things would go this way.

Paramount are owned by Viacom, who are a huge company on a fine financial footing. Nothing is likely to happen, and if it does, it will be sold to another big conglomerate before it disappears.

Why in particular?

Isn´t Sony probably going to make much more money from video games? The talents are already migrating to the next big medium.

>Lucas and Spielberg predicted things would go this way
What did they say?

hollywoodreporter.com/news/steven-spielberg-predicts-implosion-film-567604

I didn't like the Asian setting, so I decided not to see it.

This might be the first year that I haven't watched a single new release.

No theater visits, no DVD's, no streaming.

>"I got more people into Lincoln than you got into Red Tails," Spielberg joked.
#BTFO

I think the last Weinstein Co. movie that made a profit was It Follows

Yea well they are not impressing anyone with the new ps4 there making.

Pretty much all the big shots at Disney are Jewish

I just want Disney to die.

I miss MGM.

No amount of support could save it. It's not the kind of film that makes money. I could have told you that.

>A movie can make over $100 million past it's production budget and still be a failure
>The only things that manage to reach the absurdly high bar of profitability are by the numbers remakes or sequels to established franchises like Star Wars Episode IV: Episode VII or Superhero movie #1583
This entire industry needs to crash and burn

people are sick of (((the studio system)))

They aren't going to, they already are, Playstation is the only thing they do that generates any significant profit and is essentially keeping the entire ship afloat
Granted, they're probably near the upper limit of what they could hope to get out of that market

Some comedies and horror movies make absurd profits. Making $200 million off of a

They make a lot of money in japan from insurance.

No, they're sick of terrible movies. Nearly every single flop has been critically reviled, and nearly every single critically reviled film has been a flop. The DCEU films are the only ones to truly break this trend.

it's time

pretty soon the disneyjew will have a monopoly on all entertainment

>Is the studio system breaking?
Studio system has been breaking since the 60s, idiot

inb4 David Prowse RotJ

...

break the trend as they might, they still performed way below expectations.

For it seemed people were only going to see DCEU stuff because they'd already watched all the marvel movies more than once, then the next week they just didn't go to the theater at all.

...

The Big Fat Greek Wedding lady hates Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson for screwing her over and taking all of the money her money made.

Yeah, I don't believe the op numbers for a second.

>why do large corporations account in such a way as to show no profit

I mean, possibly because they'll lose half of any profit to taxes.

I bet all those movies have a shitload of people asking for their points on net profit. So of course you just get the accountants to find a way to rack up as many expenses and charges as possible to prevent that from happening. RDJ and anyone smart always ask for points on gross revenue.

I used to see one, nearly two movies a week for years, but the inflated ticket prices, the state of the theatres, not being able to watch when I want and the quality of the shit that is put out has me going once every 3 months or so.

Television is surpassing film in so many ways. The quality and control writers get on television is way more apparent than the movies.

>I bet all those movies have a shitload of people asking for their points on net profit.

With taxes asking for between 50 and 70%

And not so much asking as threatening criminal penalties if they aren't paid.

what does this means ''there is no net''. how does the studio earns money if there is not net?

The goal of any US corporation is to not make money. To spend every cent they can, otherwise, they'll lose a huge chunk of their profits to taxes.

So they account in such a way as all their expenses are paid, but they technically lost money, all for the sake of keeping as much of their money in the corporation as possible.

The only other industry that cooked their books to turn every profit into a loss (and vice versa) this hard was Ma Bell before the DoJ broke it up. Federal forensic accountants said that the Mafia was nowhere near as sophisticated as the phone company.

To be fair, Ma Bell didn't employ nearly as many people as the film industry and was basically just pocketing all their money, rather than putting it back into itself.

There's no net profit, but there's a net revenue.

Profit = The money you make subtracted by the money you spent
Revenue = The money you make

Therefore, studio accountants were able to mess with the books in a way that made it look as if his movie made no profit (as in it cost more than it brought in).

Long story short, ALWAYS demand a percentage of the gross revenue, not the profit.

>Long story short, ALWAYS demand a percentage of the gross revenue, not the profit.

Thank I'll be sure to do that on the next Hollywood blockbuster I play in

Total Gross and Marketshare tell you absolutely nothing about profit

>Sony is bleeding money
That image doesn't provide any evidence to that fact
And the fact that their last 3 movies look like this:
Sausage Party:
>Budget: 19 million
>Gross: 124 million
The Shallows:
>Budget: 17 million
>Gross: 118 million
Don't Breathe:
>Budget: 10 million
>Gross: 119 million
Makes you look like a fucking dumbass - that is probably the total amount of money FOX made off of the 3 prequel Star Wars movies according to them

Did A24 ever had a profit with any movie?

>Take a film that costs $10 million. Today it's not unusual to spend $8 million on USA advertising, and $4 million on international advertising. On a big film, add $2 million for release-prints. Say there is a 20% studio overhead on the budget; that's $2 million more. Interest on the $10 million production cost, currently at 20% a year, would add an additional $2 million a year, say, for two years -- that's another $4 million. So a $10 million film already costs $30 million.
>Now you have to get it back. Let's say an actor takes 10% of the gross, and the distributor takes a world-wide average of a 35% distribution fee. To roughly calculate the break-even figure, you have to divide the $30 million by 55%, the percentage left after the actor's 10% and the 35% distribution fee.
>That comes to $54 million of distributor's film rental. So a $10 million film may not break even, as far as the producer's share of the profits is concerned, until 5.4 times its negative cost. Obviously the actual break-even figure for the distributor is lower since he is taking a 35% distribution fee and has charged overheads.
Based Kubrick explains it in 1980.

Also "negative cost" literally means all the money spent to get to the point of the first printed negative of film reels. So a finished film.
Even though the studios front the money, they incorporate a separate legal entity to "produce the film"

10-19m range!

Fuck were these all made in the Czech Republic or something?
Has Hollywood finally gotten into such a spending war with itself that Sony have decided to do the 1970's UA/MGM strategy of making low budget films and making big margins?

Spring Breakers cost 5 mil, made 14