Slashdot Mirror

I love this quote:

"A nationwide survey conducted by Nielsen Entertainment/NRG in August of 2005 indicated that 81% of moviegoers who saw at least one movie in 2005 believed the experience was a good investment of their time and money, versus 15% who preferred to watch the movie on DVD and 4% who said they should have not seen the movie at all. "

I would have never expected 81% of people are happy with their movie going experience, and only 15% preferred DVD...

Poe is t3h awesome. He gets extra brownie points for living (an ever-so-short time) in the Bronx.

*imitating Jamie Kennedy pose* He's straight-gangsta, son.

I don't use LimeWire. I tried to install a version from their site, and the installer didn't even work. With all the installers that do work on my rig, I concluded that said installer was absolutely not straight-gangsta, son.

This is yet another press hit for the MPAA in support of their cry of declining revenues due to "internet freeloading scum".

Besides the the sarcasm he probably intended?

Here are some various and recent articles on (not) making money in Hollywood. They're not all related to (lack) of profit, but all at mention in different ways where all the money comes from and where it goes.

First three by Leonard Klady, who writes for moviecitynews.com:

Lies, Damn Lies And Statistics... (the average cost to produce and market a major Hollywood studio picture is $98 million)
Profits of Doom ... (this one goes gets around to showing how a blockbuster movie might never break even)
In Praise of Popcorn...

Then three from Slate, all written by Edward Jay Epstein:

Concessions Are for Girlie Men: Arnold Schwarzenegger's absurdly advantageous contract for Terminator 3 (a brand new article on a movie released in 2003)
How Did Michael Eisner Make Disney Profitable? Not with cartoons. (

"In 1984, when Eisner took command, the "Mouse House" produced only one animated picture every three to five years. Its entire film library had only 158 features, and its single cable channel, the Disney Channel, lost money. In addition, Disney had virtually no income from sales of videos. To keep afloat, the company depended on its amusement parks and its Mickey Mouse licensing. Yet even with these assets Disney had a tax-free cash flow of just $100 million. Its share price, reflecting this precarious financial position, was $1.33 (adjusted for splits).
In 2005, Disney was one of the richest companies in America. Its enterprise value--Wall street's favored measure of an entertainment company--had increased 32-fold since 1984 and stood at $69 billion."

)
How To Finance a Hollywood Blockbuster. Start with a German tax shelter; How NOT To Make Any Money On A Hollywood Blockbuster, a comment on the article written by David Poland, editor of moviecitynews.com, who finds it interesting but is not impressed by its accuracy.

And can a slashdot posting be complete without porn?

How much money did perhaps the most famous porn movie of all time, Deep Throat (1972), gross? The documentary Inside Deep Throat (2005) claims that it that it is the most profitable picture ever made, and that it has grossed $600 million.
Michael Hiltzik of The Los Angeles Times disputes this, using the technical term "baloney". This set off a number of responses back and forth between Hiltzik and Fenton Bailey and Randy Barbato who wrote, co-produced and directed the documentary.

Initial Hiltzik column: 'Deep Throat' Numbers Just Don't Add Up
Bailey and Barbato: More Numbers for 'Deep Throat', a somewhat longer version of their response: 'Throat' Gets Cut, Directors Perform Surgery
Hiltzik then asked them to answer twelve questions, which resulted in this column:
Hiltzik: Bad 'Deep Throat' Revenue Number

Besides the the sarcasm he probably intended?

Here are some various and recent articles on (not) making money in Hollywood. They're not all related to (lack) of profit, but all at mention in different ways where all the money comes from and where it goes.

First three by Leonard Klady, who writes for moviecitynews.com:

Lies, Damn Lies And Statistics... (the average cost to produce and market a major Hollywood studio picture is $98 million)
Profits of Doom ... (this one goes gets around to showing how a blockbuster movie might never break even)
In Praise of Popcorn...

Then three from Slate, all written by Edward Jay Epstein:

Concessions Are for Girlie Men: Arnold Schwarzenegger's absurdly advantageous contract for Terminator 3 (a brand new article on a movie released in 2003)
How Did Michael Eisner Make Disney Profitable? Not with cartoons. (

"In 1984, when Eisner took command, the "Mouse House" produced only one animated picture every three to five years. Its entire film library had only 158 features, and its single cable channel, the Disney Channel, lost money. In addition, Disney had virtually no income from sales of videos. To keep afloat, the company depended on its amusement parks and its Mickey Mouse licensing. Yet even with these assets Disney had a tax-free cash flow of just $100 million. Its share price, reflecting this precarious financial position, was $1.33 (adjusted for splits).
In 2005, Disney was one of the richest companies in America. Its enterprise value--Wall street's favored measure of an entertainment company--had increased 32-fold since 1984 and stood at $69 billion."

)
How To Finance a Hollywood Blockbuster. Start with a German tax shelter; How NOT To Make Any Money On A Hollywood Blockbuster, a comment on the article written by David Poland, editor of moviecitynews.com, who finds it interesting but is not impressed by its accuracy.

And can a slashdot posting be complete without porn?

How much money did perhaps the most famous porn movie of all time, Deep Throat (1972), gross? The documentary Inside Deep Throat (2005) claims that it that it is the most profitable picture ever made, and that it has grossed $600 million.
Michael Hiltzik of The Los Angeles Times disputes this, using the technical term "baloney". This set off a number of responses back and forth between Hiltzik and Fenton Bailey and Randy Barbato who wrote, co-produced and directed the documentary.

Initial Hiltzik column: 'Deep Throat' Numbers Just Don't Add Up
Bailey and Barbato: More Numbers for 'Deep Throat', a somewhat longer version of their response: 'Throat' Gets Cut, Directors Perform Surgery
Hiltzik then asked them to answer twelve questions, which resulted in this column:
Hiltzik: Bad 'Deep Throat' Revenue Number

Besides the the sarcasm he probably intended?

Here are some various and recent articles on (not) making money in Hollywood. They're not all related to (lack) of profit, but all at mention in different ways where all the money comes from and where it goes.

First three by Leonard Klady, who writes for moviecitynews.com:

Lies, Damn Lies And Statistics... (the average cost to produce and market a major Hollywood studio picture is $98 million)
Profits of Doom ... (this one goes gets around to showing how a blockbuster movie might never break even)
In Praise of Popcorn...

Then three from Slate, all written by Edward Jay Epstein:

Concessions Are for Girlie Men: Arnold Schwarzenegger's absurdly advantageous contract for Terminator 3 (a brand new article on a movie released in 2003)
How Did Michael Eisner Make Disney Profitable? Not with cartoons. (

"In 1984, when Eisner took command, the "Mouse House" produced only one animated picture every three to five years. Its entire film library had only 158 features, and its single cable channel, the Disney Channel, lost money. In addition, Disney had virtually no income from sales of videos. To keep afloat, the company depended on its amusement parks and its Mickey Mouse licensing. Yet even with these assets Disney had a tax-free cash flow of just $100 million. Its share price, reflecting this precarious financial position, was $1.33 (adjusted for splits).
In 2005, Disney was one of the richest companies in America. Its enterprise value--Wall street's favored measure of an entertainment company--had increased 32-fold since 1984 and stood at $69 billion."

)
How To Finance a Hollywood Blockbuster. Start with a German tax shelter; How NOT To Make Any Money On A Hollywood Blockbuster, a comment on the article written by David Poland, editor of moviecitynews.com, who finds it interesting but is not impressed by its accuracy.

And can a slashdot posting be complete without porn?

How much money did perhaps the most famous porn movie of all time, Deep Throat (1972), gross? The documentary Inside Deep Throat (2005) claims that it that it is the most profitable picture ever made, and that it has grossed $600 million.
Michael Hiltzik of The Los Angeles Times disputes this, using the technical term "baloney". This set off a number of responses back and forth between Hiltzik and Fenton Bailey and Randy Barbato who wrote, co-produced and directed the documentary.

Initial Hiltzik column: 'Deep Throat' Numbers Just Don't Add Up
Bailey and Barbato: More Numbers for 'Deep Throat', a somewhat longer version of their response: 'Throat' Gets Cut, Directors Perform Surgery
Hiltzik then asked them to answer twelve questions, which resulted in this column:
Hiltzik: Bad 'Deep Throat' Revenue Number

Actually, in this case, it was Marvel Comics that made as if there was not profit linky here.

It's common practice in the movie industry for a movie to not make a profit, on paper that is. This is so the studios don't have to pay out royalties to all the suckers that worked for "points". That's why savvy actors specify in their contract that they get "gross points" - a percentage of the gross of the movie, rather than the profit.

here is a good overview of the costs and receipts that go into making a movie. Charging interest on all sorts of costs is the way Rain Man, Forrest Gump and The English Patient haven't made a single penny -- on paper that is.

If you had net profit participation in those movies, you were reamed.

Is this unethical? Yes. Immoral? Yes. Illegal? Well, it's the movie industry doing it, and as we all know, producers of intellectual property can do no wrong.