Slashdot Mirror


Hollywood Accounting — How Harry Potter Loses Money

An anonymous reader writes "Techdirt has the details on how it was possible for the last Harry Potter movie to lose $167 million while taking in nearly $1 billion in revenue. If you ever wanted to see 'Hollywood Accounting' in action, take a look. The article also notes two recent court decisions that may raise questions about Hollywood's ability to continue with these kinds of tricks. For example, the producers of 'Who Wants To Be A Millionaire' now have to pay $270 million for its attempt to get around paying a partner through similar tricks."

19 of 447 comments (clear)

  1. The Terrible Economy Threatens Even the WB by SeriouslyNoClue · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's the people below the poverty line who don't work and aren't productive enough that are to blame for Hollywood's plight. Not the rich accountants and brilliant producers that carefully select only the most qualifying of movies. It is obviously getting to the point where our culturual heritage -- the heritage of Americans -- in film needs to be conserved by the government. Which is why movies like Harry Potter should be able to apply for and be granted a government bailout when they finish in the red. It's obvious that the economy has hit them hard and they need a little help. With the file sharers and ripoff dupes in the world taking away their copyright, this is the only way we can help them out until a solid and sane prosecution framework like ACTA is approved for the whole world.

    My thoughts and prayers are with Hollywood and the families of everyone involved with such quality original films.

  2. Re:Peter Jackson by God'sDuck · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wait...if they claim they are losing money on every copy they sell, aren't the pirates saving them money?

  3. MPAA's Piracy Statistics by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Funny

    You know, if they can make such a wildly successful film as Harry Potter appear to lose money, then suddenly all of the MPAA's statistics about piracy make sense!

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  4. Re:Not a new trick by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Shrimps are expensive.

  5. Paging Washington by cdrudge · · Score: 5, Funny

    Obviously Hollywood needs a government bail out. First the pirates were cutting into sales, and with all these extremely successful movies that have lost millions, Congress must do something fast!

  6. Re:Peter Jackson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Jackson's contract is for a cut. What's crazy is, in hollywood everyone knows to ask for a cut of the *gross*, not net. I can buy the idea of magic rings, elves, dwarves, hobbits, dragons, ents, wizards, and so forth, but a net reported profit on a Hollywood movie? That's just fantasy.

  7. Re:Not a new trick by blair1q · · Score: 5, Funny

    Life is like a box of chocolates...where someone has eaten the middle out of every one.

  8. Re:Peter Jackson by mysidia · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's why piracy has GOT to be stopped immediately. It foils the movie makers' tax dodge (and revenue sharing dodge)

    Let's see them bring THAT justification to congress, on why it is imperative for the economy to make tougher anti-pirate laws

  9. Re:So this means by falzer · · Score: 2, Funny

    So this means I should pirate more movies, since my pirating isn't hurting their wallet as much as they claimed it was yes?

    When pirating, you never took into consideration whether or not it would hurt anyone's wallet except your own, so continue pirating at your regular rate. If you ever get caught (unlikely) you can tell them falzer on Slashdot said it was OK.

  10. Star Trek interview by KDN · · Score: 4, Funny

    Years ago I read an interview with one of the cast members of the original Star Trek. He said that the most creative writers were the finance guys who claimed that in 30 years of reruns that Star Trek has never made a profit. (I think the interview was in the early 90's) Unfortunately I do not recall who that was.

  11. Re:Not a new trick by damnfuct · · Score: 5, Funny

    And Star Wars (4-6) - the guy who was actually in Darth Vader's suite never got paid for the role.

    I mean, why should he? That freeloading bas**rd was just hanging around Vader's suite? Being such a key figure in the Empire, he's probably got his suite outfitted with all sorts of luxuries.
    note: suite and not suit

  12. Re:No it doesn't by Adriax · · Score: 3, Funny

    Tack a negative sign to the box office take in.

    --
    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
  13. Re:Peter Jackson by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 4, Funny

    I saw a similar scheme on the streets of New York involving 3 cards.

  14. Re:Hollywood is different by Alsee · · Score: 2, Funny

    Tax avoidance through expense maximization and income minimization

    Yeah, you would not believe the amount of taxes I avoid paying through income minimization.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  15. Perfect movie for this theme by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 5, Funny

    Guy: It was a producer, wasn't it?

    Forrest Gump: A producer?

    Guy: That signed you up and fucked you.

    Forrest Gump: Oh, yes sir. Fucked me right in the buttocks. They said it was a million dollar contract, but the studio must keep that money 'cause I still haven't seen a nickel of that million dollars.

  16. Re:Let's not jump to conclusions by sweatyboatman · · Score: 4, Funny

    Avatar had writers?

    --
    It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
  17. Re:Not Hollywood alone by yabos · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yeah, but his name is Gino and he supposedly has ties to the Italian mob so he's probably ok.

  18. Re:Peter Jackson by feepness · · Score: 4, Funny

    So what you're saying is, you're a thief.

  19. Re:ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESS COMPLETELY OWNED BY JEWS by demonlapin · · Score: 1, Funny

    The obvious solution is to convert to Judaism.