All That Chat - re: Actually, it was considered a hit

HOME ALL THAT CHAT ATC WEST COAST SHOPPIN' RUSH BOARD FAQS

LOGIN REGISTER SEARCH FLAT MODE

not logged in

re: Actually, it was considered a hit

Posted by:	keikekaze 08:00 pm EDT 04/02/14
In reply to:	Actually, it was considered a hit - MockingbirdGirl 07:01 pm EDT 04/02/14

I hope you're remembering the difference between movie grosses and movie net receipts. Producers and distributors of films never pocket the whole gross--they're lucky to get 50 percent of it, and it can be a lot less. Theater owners get the rest. I haven't looked up Count's box-office, but just as a hypothetical example, if a film costs $50 million to produce and it grosses $70 million, it's not making a $20 million profit. It's probably losing about $15 million, and that doesn't even factor in prints and advertising, which can run to many millions and is a separate item from production costs.

reply \|

Previous:	Actually, it was considered a hit - MockingbirdGirl 07:01 pm EDT 04/02/14
Next:	re: Actually, it was considered a hit - MockingbirdGirl 09:11 pm EDT 04/02/14

Thread:	re: Actually, it was considered a hit - MockingbirdGirl 09:11 pm EDT 04/02/14 (2) re: Actually, it was considered a hit - keikekaze 01:52 am EDT 04/03/14 re: Actually, it was considered a hit - chrisampm 10:07 pm EDT 04/02/14

All That Chat is intended for the discussion of theatre news and opinion
subject to the terms and conditions of the Terms of Service. (Please take all off-topic discussion to private email.)