Hollywood Accounting: Darth Vader Not Getting Paid, Because Return Of The Jedi Still Isn't Profitable

from the it-might-draw-you-to-the-dark-side dept

Tue, Sep 13th 2011 9:44am — Mike Masnick

Last year, we wrote about Hollywood accounting and how the big studios set up "corporations" for each movie, specifically designed to "lose money," often by paying money back to the studio itself. Basically, the studio sets up this "company," but then charges the company a huge "fee," such that the company itself rarely, if ever, becomes profitable. Of course, hugely successful films usually still get past the threshold, but perhaps not all of them. Hugues Lamy points us to the news that the actor who played Darth Vader in Return of the Jedi is saying that Lucasfilm still isn't paying residuals, claiming that the film is still not profitable:

�I get these occasional letters from Lucasfilm saying that we regret to inform you that as Return of the Jedi has never gone into profit, we�ve got nothing to send you. Now here we�re talking about one of the biggest releases of all time,� said Prowse. �I don�t want to look like I�m bitching about it,� he said, �but on the other hand, if there�s a pot of gold somewhere that I ought to be having a share of, I would like to see it.�

If you adjust for inflation, Jedi is the 15th highest grossing films of all time. In other words, the movie has made a ton of money. But somehow, amazingly, Lucasfilm is still able to claim that it lost money. And you wonder where the MPAA got its math skills.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: accounting, darth vader, movies, profitability, return of the jedi
Companies: lucasfilm

182 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 9:07am

And you wonder where the MPAA got its math skills.

Forget math. I bet they got their accounting skills from Arthur Andersen.

How is this shit not illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 9:36am
  
  Re:
  They greased the right hands, and genitalia.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dave, 13 Sep 2011 @ 9:59am
  
  Re:
  Hey, be fair. Paying yourself a ton of money isn't cheap!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DOlz (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:39am
  
  Re:
  You do know that there is a branch of mathematics called imaginary numbers?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ben (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 12:07pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Imaginary numbers deal with the square root of negative one.
    
    Hollywood's imaginary accounting deals with the square root of jack
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DOlz (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 2:19pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I was aware of that. To quote Foghorn Leghorn, "It's a joke son, I say it's a joke."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Atomsk (profile), 11 Jan 2016 @ 2:21am
  
  Re:
  Jews
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 9:48am

Hey Mike, rather than just whipping out your broadbrush again and having a field day, why not actually look into it?

Oh wait, the answers might not be what you like.

wuss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 9:50am
  
  Re:
  How about explaining your logic since it makes absolutely no sense?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 9:52am
  
  Re:
  Not trolling, but can you add some facts if you have them?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 10:25am
    
    Re: Re:
    You mean other than the facts in the article? Seems to speak for itself.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - BeeAitch (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:30am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      We don't have the ability to hear what those voices in your head are telling you. Enlighten us, please...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 9:54am
  
  Re:
  You mean there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for why the 15th highest grossing film of all time is not profitable?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - crade (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 10:35am
    
    Re: Re:
    because they blew all the money adding in crappy cgi characters?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Incoherent One (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 1:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It was Jar Jar. That little ass ruined everything.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:06am
    
    Re: Re:
    Well Marcus, if you took the time to learn a few things about how movies work, you might understand it.
    
    See, financing a movie and getting things going something is done with "points" rather than actual cash up front. Those points are percentages of the movie income. There are a couple of different pools (often many). The easiest for someone like you to understand is "points before expenses" and "points after expenses". It is important to understand that the points before go against the bottom line.
    
    So the easiest explanation is that there are too many participants or too big of a percentage given away as "points before". The people who are in the "points after" position may never see any money as a result.
    
    How does this happen? Well, it can often be found in sub-companies that are used for different tasks. ILM (Industrial Light and Magic) may have done the work on the movie at a lower rate, and then taken "points" for a longer term payout. So it goes, each contract and each agreement chipping away at the bottom line.
    
    If there are too many points taken, you can end up in a situation where there is never a profit.
    
    I hope that helps you to understand the basics.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - HothMonster, 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:11am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      oh see its not shady accounting its just.....shady accounting with a points system. got it
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - crade (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        damn your quick clicking fingers!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 12:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He will wave his hand and say "this is not the explanation you want to give"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Jose_X, 14 Sep 2011 @ 8:18pm
        
        He was hiding something
        Lucas disconnected Vader from the force for unauthorized usage.
        
        The old man was also caught sharing with a rebel.
        
        I only mention this because it triggered one of the point clauses in the contract between Vader and Lucas:
        
        "Sixteen points ($3 billion USD) will be forfeited to the empire to compensate for any disturbance occurring over 3 miles from the initial source."
        
        Given how Lucas scripted all of Vader's scenes, I'm surprise he didn't see that one coming!!!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - crade (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Whats your point? These sort of scams are exactly what this article is about.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I think the point you are missing (pun intended) is that we are all acutely aware of the fact that there are accounting shell games at work to cheat an actor out of any residuals. This awareness is, in fact, the point of the article.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Cowardly Anon, 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Basics sure. It still doesn't help me understand how a movie that has been released twice, with a third release on the way, that has record video sales, and is apart of a franchise that could only be described as a magic golden cow of cash still isn't making money.
      
      I'm willing to bet money that dear Mr. Lucas has made money off that film.
      
      You can come in here with your trolling attitude and just enough facts to appear like you know what you're talking about, but in the end you still look like an ass with an internet connection. Congrats.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - blaktron (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The movie business - the only place where the investor gets paid before the employee.... oh wait, thats the USA. My bad.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Derek Kerton (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 3:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nobody here has a problem with the fact that the actor doesn't get paid for work done 30 years ago. Masnick isn't actually saying Prouse deserves money. The issues are:
        
        - the hypocrisy of the studio to say they just represent the actors and writers, etc, but don't.
        
        - the standard bad math skills and questionable accounting tactics of the studios.
        
        - the fact that the studios then go to DC with the same bad math and accounting, and try to tell us they don't make money because of piracy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        blaktron (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 4:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        My point isnt that anyone 'should' be making money 30 years later, but it is making money 30 years later, the only difference is that through accounting tricks the investors take 'profits' before they've even paid all their bills...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He can't seem to seperate 'technically accurate from an accounting standpoint' from 'morally correct or just.' To him they're apparently the same.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yup, that's pretty much exactly what I pictured: shifty accounting. Thanks for confirming.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Ben (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 12:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Don't be obtuse Marcus, it's all about the points man!
        
        Likely Jedi was set up much like Springtime for Hitler, with Lucas the equivalent of an untalented Max Bialystock. Unfortunately he fucked too many Grannies and now owes $452 for each $1 Jedi earns.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 1:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It isn't shifty accounting. It's perfectly legal accounting, it's contract law, and it's the way things work.
        
        Now, this is a perfect example of why Mike making fun of the MPAA "math" is such a joke, because much of the income of movie is trickled down to other place, from creators to actors and the like. The money doesn't just disappear, it is still circulating in the economy.
        
        Oh, wait, in this case, you guys want to act like the money just disappeared. Right, got it.
        
        Just think of the guy getting the "not profitable" mail as the same as someone trying to sell their music. They aren't getting paid because piracy made it "unprofitable". Same for the manufacture, the shipping company, and the retailers. Oh wait, in Techdirt land, when it comes to piracy, all bets are off. There is no harm.
        
        Got it.
        
        The only shifty thing here is how you guys look at stuff.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 2:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Just think of the guy getting the "not profitable" mail as the same as someone trying to sell their music. They aren't getting paid because piracy made it "unprofitable". Same for the manufacture, the shipping company, and the retailers. Oh wait, in Techdirt land, when it comes to piracy, all bets are off. There is no harm."
        
        I have read some silly things in my time, but this is one of the flatout mind-numbingly stupid comparisons to two completely different sets of arguments I've ever read. My brain actually shit itself as I read it. Do you know how much that hurts? To have your brain shit itself?
        
        I actually spent the last several minutes jamming my mechanical pencil into my testicles, just to force myself to focus on the pain instead of the asswagon nonsense that you just wrote out.
        
        1. Nobody is claiming the money disappeared. It's being spent. By LucasFilm execs that shouldn't have the money, were it not for nonsense accounting techniques that would give Enron a hardon.
        
        2. Musicians don't work under contract for listeners. They should figure out a way to, actually, but they don't. They aren't promised money only to be told that money doesn't exist because of *bang* *boom* *pow!* Batman accounting nonsense.
        
        3. PIRACY DIDN'T MAKE SELLING MUSIC UNPROFITABLE! Musicians are making money. Labels are struggling to. Those that actually are "selling their music" as opposed to trying to have someone else sell it for them are doing just fine.
        
        Besides all this, the two issues are different, mostly because the RIAA actually DID say the money disappeared while we DIDN'T, and yet you try to apply that accusation to us?
        
        I actually laughed my way through your comment, because I picture you masturbating through your tears while typing with only one hand, a picture of the Techdirt logo all over your room as the sense of rejection seeps in.
        
        Techdirt: the place you claim to hate, yet can't stop visiting and discussing. It might be time to find God, or at least a good psychiatrist....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 2:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So, what's your argument? That one of the most successful films in history couldn't even make a profit in the pre-Internet era and that's normal, or that it's OK for Dave Prowse not to get paid because someone else has the money?
        
        "They aren't getting paid because piracy made it "unprofitable"."
        
        Tell me, exactly how much money was lost from the 1983 cinema release of this film due to piracy, especially Internet piracy? In the decade before the web was invented, what part of your moronic statement even applies?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        HothMonster, 13 Sep 2011 @ 2:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        um didnt you know, the VCR bankrupted hollywood 2 decades ago
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Groove Tiger (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 6:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It was the Boston strangler all over again!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 2:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It isn't shifty accounting. It's perfectly legal accounting, it's contract law, and it's the way things work.
        
        They used to say similar things about slavery in the Southern US. "It isn't wrong. It's perfectly legal, it's property law, and it's the way things work."
        
        Just because something's legal, that doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dave, 13 Sep 2011 @ 2:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The only shifty thing here is how you guys look at stuff.
        
        Right! You mean without our reality distorting lenses!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 4:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        For the guy who claims to have all this knowledge about the industry, you certainly are naive about it. And kind of lacking in real knowledge too.
        
        There is no clearly drawn line about what constitutes legal accounting in this case - especially since these lawsuits can come before juries as well as judges. The former, like the readers here, tend to balk at the idea that a multi-(m/b)illion-dollar entertainment franchise can fail to turn a profit. So do some of the latter.
        
        You say it's all clear and legal, but it's not that simple. When you dig into the details of the accounting, it all seems rather convenient- the way expenses are always clocking in at juuuust enough to keep them from having to pay out any points off the net, and always including lots of elastic numbers that are hard to justify. That's suspicious to say the least, especially when you are looking at something like Star Wars that practically sells itself.
        
        Now, I can tell that you think contracts are a game of "hahaha, I gotcha!" - and admittedly sometimes they can be. But the world is not entirely like the elementary school playground where you learned your social skills. If two parties have entered into a seemingly equitable contract in good faith, then one party uses questionable (even if not outright illegal) methods to twist that contract massively in their favour, it is quite possible that a jury or judge will award damages. They can, they have, and they will again - more and more often as these topics come further into the light.
        
        I can really only take so much condescension from someone as plainly clueless as you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 4:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I bet uncle Sam will have a different view when it realizes how much money they don't get because of those practices.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        xenomancer (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 6:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I bet uncle Sam will have a different view when it realizes how much money they don't get because of those practices."
        
        Don't bet on it. That's what hollywood has lobbyists for.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 4:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Care to explain why the industry is putting propaganda out using a microphone boom mic operator and other staff saying they get "residuals" when they don't really?
        
        Is that a real lie then, you just admitted that films don't pay others but they do like to claim that they do, what do you call that?
        
        I call it total BS.
        
        So much for the line "Workers receive residuals that pay for their retirement" LoL
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 9:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I am sorry, but your rant is pretty hard to examine without examples.
        
        Oh, those examples really should include the contracts and stuff.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 10:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I am sorry, but your rant is pretty hard to examine without examples.
        
        Oh, those examples really should include the contracts and stuff.
        
        Naturally you say this here, but completely ignore my comment above where I link to examples that in fact do include extensive documented details.
        
        You just don't know when to admit defeat, do you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Dude, if you your argument had any more holes poked in it, it would be a sex doll.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        David, 29 Mar 2014 @ 2:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Dude, if you your argument had any more holes poked in it, it would be a sex doll.
        
        You stay out of the kitchen until somebody explains to you the difference between "noodle sieve" and "sex doll".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No need. Judging from the outcome 'this film made no money', we know its total BS.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 12:15pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So the easiest explanation is that there are too many participants or too big of a percentage given away as "points before". The people who are in the "points after" position may never see any money as a result.
      
      In other words it is exactly the same kind of scheme as the sub-prime mortgage lending scam. I thought it was - but now you have confirmed it for me.
      Thanks.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 12:27pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      percentages can't equal *more* than how much the money makes.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 4:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nor can there be over 100 points. Of course, if these two simple concepts have been somehow "overlooked", we are getting back to the bad math skills.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - herbert, 13 Sep 2011 @ 12:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      what an absolute load of bollocks!!!!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 3:51pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "It is important to understand that the points before go against the bottom line."
      
      The bottom line (pun intended) is that the movie made a lot of money and the actor didn't get paid. There is no good reason for this.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - David, 29 Mar 2014 @ 2:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, it reads like a murder defense by explaining ballistics. "This was not a case of homicide, your honor. The bullet moved according to the laws of physics and in accordance with its design and ballistics. I can explain the trigger mechanism to you, and you'll see that nothing in it can reasonably be called murderous."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - qabal (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 12:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Thanks for making that clear, AC: at 10:1 ROI (not counting non-box office profits), you can only pay back the people who took the BIG risks. I think we can all remember how risky this movie was to produce and how unlikely the audience was to embrace it.
      
      But you're absolutely right, we just don't understand equitable accounting. Besides all those actors were just 'work for hire'... they don't deserve any of the benefits of original contribution. Like investors do.
      
      The question I have is: Does this system work like the RIAA? If we asked Harrison Ford, would he say that he's never seen a residual check? Or is it just the Prowse's of the world who have neither clout, nor a legal staff, who catch the shaft?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - PaulT (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 1:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        " I think we can all remember how risky this movie was to produce and how unlikely the audience was to embrace it."
        
        Erm, I hope you're being sarcastic? The original Star Wars maybe, but the 3rd part of the most successful trilogy of all time at that point? The movie they shot under the name of Blue Harvest and pre-advertised as Revenge Of The Jedi to throw off bootleg merchandisers? Hardly.
        
        "Besides all those actors were just 'work for hire'... they don't deserve any of the benefits of original contribution. Like investors do."
        
        If you honestly think that, you're probably turning more people to the "dark side" than otherwise. Take a few minutes to try and work out why that might be, and then if it's still a struggle think of how many people look at the work of Prowse or Baker vs. the guy who dropped a highly profitable bank note.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2011 @ 7:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        @PaulT sorry dude, that whole post was clearly sarcastic. Qabal's not the enemy ;)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DinDaddy (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 4:24pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Yes. Because Lucas is still working on it. Do you have any idea how much money it takes to add the word "Noooooooooo" to an audio track?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike C. (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 10:16am
  
  Re:
  Hey Anonymous Coward, rather than just whipping out your broadbrush again and having a field day, why not actually provide a valid rebuttal?
  
  Oh wait, you can't
  
  wuss.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 10:16am
  
  Re:
  Read what david actually said: he said that his contract stated NET profits, rather than GROSS. So anything done now to promote Jedi can be set as an expense, rather than promotion.
  
  And yet we're the thieves? Get real. Even a crack-addled Sarah Palin would make more sense than you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Spaceboy (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 10:17am
  
  Re:
  STFU. We know you are George Lucas posting as an AC. Please explain how ROTJ hasn't made a profit.
  
  ROTJ had a production budget of $32,500,000.00. Domestic Lifetime gross is $309,306,177.00.
  
  Let's see how my math skills are. Subtract production budget from lifetime gross and we are left with $276,806,177. Then we add the foreign gross which is $165,800,000 and we have a grand total of $442,606,177. That's almost half a BILLION dollars. That's only from the box office.
  
  So Mr Anonymous Coward, care to elaborate?
  
  What's that? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWaLxFIVX1s
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:07am
    
    Re: Re:
    See my comments above regarding "points before expenses".
    
    Have a nice day!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:21am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Your comment above amounts to 'well accounting wise they didn't really promise the actor anything of value so it's ok that they're not paying him anything.'
      
      What's startling is that you think explaining in greater detail how accounting distorts reality would convince anyone you have a point.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 12:09pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So basically accounting shell games then?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 12:24pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      See my comments above regarding "points before expenses". crtlH crtlH crtlH crtlH crtlH Ponzi schemes
      
      FTFY
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 1:51pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You are vehemently defending the fact that a movie that made half a billion dollars is apparently unprofitable...
      
      And you think people should listen to YOUR views on business models?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:40am
    
    Re: Re:
    Oh come on, be reasonable!
    
    You can't expect a movie like RoTJ to actually turn a profit with a measly half-billion dollars in net revenue, can you?
    
    The production budget only covers the amount to *make* the film, not how much is spent to get the film to theaters, and to get suckers^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcustomers into the seats.
    
    You obviously have no idea how much it costs to ship film reels to the theatres - that must be in the tens of millions of dollars right there!
    
    Or how about promotional posters? You can't just take posters down to your local Kinko's to print willy-nilly, you have to clear the rights first - and the rights to a franshise like Star Wars run into the hundreds of millions. You can't expect Lucas to be able to just *give himself permission* for something important like that, he'd be robbing himself. What are you, some kind of filthy pirate?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 1:38pm
    
    Re: Re:
    ...and that's only domestic, and not counting video sales, where it's been released at least 6-7 times and bought multiple times by the same damn people. Also, licensing and merch, which Lucas probably pocketed directly to fund his stupid prequels.
    
    But, Hollywood's accountants fudge the numbers to stop an actor getting paid, so that's all OK with Mr. Corporate Bootlicker over there.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 10:26am
  
  Re:
  It's ironic that every post you make is the same, which is the very definition of "broadbrush."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 10:41am
  
  Re:
  Oh, so this week's talking point is "broadbush." I hope next week's is aardvark.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Berenerd (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:08am
    
    Re: Re:
    nonono..Tuna...ever since the gill nets...Tuna doesn't get talked about much...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 2:38pm
  
  Re:
  Yeah, Mike takes one example and tries to make it look like the MPAA always does this kind of thing. Mike must really hate all the artists that make their living in Hollywood. Shame.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 12:27am
    
    Re: Re:
    You really think this is an isolated example? Try using Google for a couple of minutes, and you'll see it's not an isolated incident, even though the studios do try to keep a lid on this being public knowledge (start with Forrest Gump).
    
    The main commentary here is simply how blatant it is - one of the most successful movies of all time and it's still not profitable?
    
    "Mike must really hate all the artists that make their living in Hollywood."
    
    Like Dave Prowse? Or does he not count because he's an Englishman?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2012 @ 2:21pm
  
  Re:
  THREAD BLOCKED
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
RD, 13 Sep 2011 @ 9:49am

No Movie Has Ever Made a Profit (except maybe 14 of them)
So, what is basically being said here is, when it comes to paying royalties, virtually NO MOVIE HAS EVER MADE A PROFIT!

Except maybe (and only a maybe) the 14 above Jedi. If Jedi, at 15th all time grossing, cant make a profit, then by extension nothing below it ever has either.

And the trolls wonder why we slag Big Copyright and Hollywood so much, when they exhibit blatantly ridiculous outright thievery like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Pedant, 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:10am
  
  Re: No Movie Has Ever Made a Profit (except maybe 14 of them)
  Strictly speaking, if we're talking gross the films that grossed less could still be turning a profit if their budget was smaller than Jedi's.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kavius, 17 Sep 2011 @ 3:26pm
  
  Re: No Movie Has Ever Made a Profit (except maybe 14 of them)
  Not exactly. Just because it grossed that much, doesn't mean it didn't also spend all of it. Revenue - Expenses = Profit.
  
  Still stinks...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- alex, 2 Nov 2011 @ 3:10pm
  
  Re: No Movie Has Ever Made a Profit (except maybe 14 of them)
  You MORON.
  
  No it DOES NOT MEAN that everything below it didn't "make profit". You indescribably stupid person.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2012 @ 2:30pm
  
  Re: No Movie Has Ever Made a Profit (except maybe 14 of them)
  Not exactly, because probably not every movie wrote the contracts the same way, i.e. they weren't as clever in skimming the profit, so there might actually be hundreds or thousands of movies where decent residuals were actually paid, as well as thousands of others where they weren't.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 9:49am

This is just disapointing. I mean it's not really a surprise, but still sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lord Binky, 13 Sep 2011 @ 10:00am

Maybe...Just Maybe....
We have enough politicians that are big enough fans of star wars to start putting some changes out there......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simon, 13 Sep 2011 @ 10:03am

So every time he opens "..not profitable, yadadada" letter, does he say "Nooooooooooooooo!" ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 13 Sep 2011 @ 10:52am
  
  Re:
  No, because Prowse was the body of Vader, not the voice.
  
  That is to say, he was as silent as Vader was in the original version of that scene before Lucas ruined it.
  
  /geekrage
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Niall (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 4:55am
    
    Re: Re:
    Darth Farmer....
    
    "Remember padawans, always use the Green Force Code..."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 10:58am
  
  Re:
  Only when referring to the current re-release.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Cowardly Anon, 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:20am
    
    Re: Re:
    I think you mean re-re-release....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      technically i believe its a re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-release
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
WDS (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 10:04am

Of course it hasn't made a profit!
It would have, but somewhere someone downloaded an illegal copy. The resulting economic impact was too much to recover from.

I tried to help by buying the original on laserdisk, the laserdisk boxed set, and the DVD boxed set, but there is just so much one person can do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 10:10am
  
  Re: Of course it hasn't made a profit!
  Buy the Blu-Ray set at only $1,000 for the gold-laced Midichlorian Edition.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Berenerd (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:11am
  
  Re: Of course it hasn't made a profit!
  I even got the VHS set...also in BETA...yeah...so what? WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO ABOUT IT???
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 1:25pm
  
  Re: Of course it hasn't made a profit!
  I only have the original laserdiscs and the remastered laserdisc box set. Never got any DVDs.
  
  I guess this is my fault, then.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 1:48pm
    
    Re: Re: Of course it hasn't made a profit!
    I bought the DVDs but refused to double dip yet again for the original version they hadn't even bothered to remaster. I also refuse to buy the upcoming Blu Ray set since they've been tinkered with again and don't have the originals.
    
    Truly, I am history's greatest monster.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Groove Tiger (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 6:19pm
  
  Re: Of course it hasn't made a profit!
  Do you have any idea how expensive was to download a movie in 1983?
  
  We're talking thousands if not millions of 5 1/4 diskettes, filled using a Hayes modem at 300 bauds!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AJ, 13 Sep 2011 @ 10:10am

Soooo, I guess this tosses the "piracy is killing the artists" argument. If only a possible 14 or so movies pay the artists after the initial production, I can't see how it's "hurting" them at all.

When the artists figure out that the pirates are the fans and the middle men are the pirates, your going to see a disturbance in the force....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 10:17am
  
  Re:
  Or possibly an execution of Order 66.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- crade (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 10:51am
  
  Re:
  ahh, but don't you see? if it weren't for the advent of the vhs tape, all movies would be profitable, everyone would be paid and candy would shoot out of the MPAA's ass.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - blaktron (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:25am
    
    Re: Re:
    It already does, as long as you understand that Candy is 23 and makes $1500 an hour...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 1:52pm
  
  Re:
  Except that many artists are getting 'points before expenses'. Just this guy happened to sign the wrong side and won't get much.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - HothMonster, 13 Sep 2011 @ 2:03pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "Just this guy happened to sign the wrong side and won't get much."
    
    did he sign the dark side?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 5:03pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It seems the right side is difficult to sign in since if even the major characters of a plot can't find it, imagine what the coffee lady would have to do, to get on that side.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Killer_Tofu (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 10:16am

Copyright encouraging content creation?
Is this what the big labels and studios mean by copyright encourages innovation and content creation? They guarantee that almost no musicians or actors ever get royalties, so then those artists are encouraged to go out and make more content so that they can have an income.

Sorry RIAA and MPAA, but that's fucked up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Zot-Sindi, 13 Sep 2011 @ 10:41am
  
  Re: Copyright encouraging content creation?
  when they said copyrights/patents are meant to "encourage innovation & creativity" what they actually meant was that they "encourage innovation & creativity for figuring out ways to fuck people out of their cash", it's working!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PlagueSD (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 10:17am

/waves hand

These are not the profits you are looking for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Incoherent One (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 1:47pm
  
  Re:
  /waves hand
  
  This is not the contract we signed.
  
  /waves hand again
  
  This is the new contract which we need you to sign.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 1:54pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Incoherent One (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 2:58pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      *tips hat
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 2:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Just wait till Lucas shows up and remasters it
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceboy (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 10:19am

When David Prowse asked about the profitability of the movie, this is how Lucasfilm responded...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWaLxFIVX1s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rubberpants, 13 Sep 2011 @ 10:31am

Remember Kids
It's only a moral issue if piracy is involved. If an RIAA/MPAA member behaves badly, it's "just business."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HothMonster, 13 Sep 2011 @ 10:38am

Well if Darth Vader hadn't taken such a stupid huge advance....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ron Rezendes (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 10:52am
  
  Re:
  Do you have any idea how much it costs to build and maintain a Death Star?
  
  Come on, what's and evil arch villain suppose to live in?
  
  A condo on Titan?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MrWilson, 13 Sep 2011 @ 10:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    A condo on Titan would likely not have an exposed exhaust port vulnerability defended by clumsy turbolaser turrets and useless rayshielding...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - HothMonster, 13 Sep 2011 @ 10:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    http://gizmodo.com/5146010/death-star-costs-156-septillion-14-trillion-times-the-us-debt
    
    i guess that would explain it, they got a long time to go before this movie is profitable
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 1:59pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Plus think of the payments to the families of the contractors killed, not to mention military pensions for the families of the non-clone workers... I bet star destroyers don't come cheap either!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 13 Sep 2011 @ 7:57pm
      
      Re: Death Star Canteen
      Bonus Eddie Izzard clip. :)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- LDoBe, 13 Sep 2011 @ 1:04pm
  
  Response to: HothMonster on Sep 13th, 2011 @ 10:38am
  In the words of Lando: man this deal is getting worse all the time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jason, 13 Sep 2011 @ 10:48am

Business Model
What I see here is the movie studios need to change their business model. With movies never making a profit they should charge individuals extra money while at the theater. Oh and another idea. Televisions with ATM/Credit card slots so they can charge us to watch the trailers for the movies. Maybe then they will make some cash. And with luck, not go bankrupt. After all, without making profit their is no motivation to continue remaking all the movies of old.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BeeAitch (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:38am
  
  Re: Business Model
  STOP GIVING THEM IDEAS
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 12:06pm
    
    Re: Re: Business Model
    Why?
    
    Is like giving rope to a drunk person near the edge of a bottomless pit.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 10:50am

Has any actor in this situation ever tried a legal action to pierce the corporate veil and get at the studio's profits when the shell corporation is bankrupt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- blaktron (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:29am
  
  Re:
  This should actually be pretty easy since piercing the veil is generally automatic when it comes to shell corps hiding a single entity (lucasfilm)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 1:17pm
  
  Re:
  In the linked story, a commenter that gets quoted at the bottom of the article notes that this is usually the only way for points-after contracts to get money out of movies. They sue, the studio settles (because they don't want to publicly disclose their books).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AG Wright, 13 Sep 2011 @ 3:13pm
  
  Re:
  Look up James Garner and his law suit over "The Rockford Files"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 10:54am

Old news, but still sucks. Back in the mid 90s when Babylon 5 was in production, J. Michael Straczynski (the creator of the show) talked on Usenet all the time about Hollywood accounting. Other than a salary, he knew he'd never get a cut of profits (even though profits were in his contract) because the system is setup so that movies and TV shows don't show a profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rikuo (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 10:54am

Okay, let's say Hollywood is correct when they say that no movie has ever made a profit. That means they sink millions into a movie and get no return.
So...how come when the next movie rolls around, there's somehow millions set aside for the budget. If your company is reporting that it never makes a profit, where does it get the money from for the next project? So then, why aren't these companies being investigated for fraud?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:17am
  
  Re:
  " So then, why aren't these companies being investigated for fraud"
  
  Why be investigated when you can buy the Senate and make them look the other way to criminalize file sharing for your losses?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David, 29 Mar 2014 @ 2:44am
  
  Re:
  So...how come when the next movie rolls around, there's somehow millions set aside for the budget.
  
  The budget is upfront costs. Of course they detract from the profits.
  If your company is reporting that it never makes a profit, where does it get the money from for the next project?
  
  As the previous projects moved towards the black zero (never reaching it, of course), the investment for the next movie resurfaces.
  
  The ultimate source, of course, are the revenues from "Steamboat Willy." Which is why it must never run out of copyright, or Hollywood will fall.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That other guy (profile), 21 May 2015 @ 8:06am
    
    So this question is not asked again, and people begin to understand the accounting a bit, a studio will form sub companies to perform various tasks in the making of the movie and you, the actor or whomever you are, are hired by the sub company (the bottom of the food chain). Your percent of the profits comes from a shell company that pays by design all the money to upstream companies. The IRS gets paid by the parent company, the top of the food chain, you get paid by the shell company, the bottom, so your 5% of the net profits will almost always be equal to $0 while the IRS gets paid by the parent all the money they are entitled. Get 5% of the gross and you have a chance or 5% of the money paid to the parent. Until that time, get your money upfront, that's all you're ever going to see - but you already know that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 13 Sep 2011 @ 10:55am

The tear-jerking story of a millionaire cheated by a billionaire.
No doubt Prowse /already/ got for a few hundred hours of acting more than most people will earn in a lifetime of labor, so my sympathy is low.

There's just WAY too much money in mass entertainment, and little of it is deserved as produces no lasting value. We need an over-arching limit on incomes, besides an end to accounting tricks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:04am
  
  Re: The tear-jerking story of a millionaire cheated by a billionaire.
  ....Did you just indicate that the damned Star Wars franchise is not something generating "lasting value"?
  
  What the HELL man? Are you just TRYING to sound stupid?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - rubberpants, 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:09am
    
    Re: Re: The tear-jerking story of a millionaire cheated by a billionaire.
    Yeah, he's harder to pin down than that guy selling his own detritus at the entrance to the subway station.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Zot-Sindi, 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:10am
    
    Re: Re: The tear-jerking story of a millionaire cheated by a billionaire.
    oh, they definitely don't have to try
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 12:57pm
    
    Re: Re: The tear-jerking story of a millionaire cheated by a billionaire.
    There's ONE part of this where he has a point.
    
    That's the residuals for Screen Actors paying artists even in death.
    
    Other than that, he's smoking something and I hope he can share what it is because it MUST be some good stuff...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:10am
  
  Re: The tear-jerking story of a millionaire cheated by a billionaire.
  It's not about sympathy for him. It's about the fact that the studios are provably thieves, cheats, and liars and so anything they say about the importance of strict copyright laws should be completely disregarded due to their untrustworthiness.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 1:01pm
    
    Re: Re: The tear-jerking story of a millionaire cheated by a billionaire.
    "It's not about sympathy for him. It's about the fact that the studios are DEFINITELY thieves, cheats, and liars and so anything they say about the importance of strict copyright laws should be completely disregarded due to their untrustworthiness."
    
    fixed it for you :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Groove Tiger (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 6:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: The tear-jerking story of a millionaire cheated by a billionaire.
      I think he means provable, not probable.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- blaktron (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:31am
  
  Re: The tear-jerking story of a millionaire cheated by a billionaire.
  Millionaire: The guy who pays your salary or rents you your home.
  Billionaire: The guy who puts him out of business, fires you and forecloses your home.
  
  Ya, I think I know where the sympathy would lie, if this were about sympathy at all. Rather its about economics and how something perfectly legal can still be morally wrong.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- A Monkey with Atitude, 13 Sep 2011 @ 12:41pm
  
  Re: The tear-jerking story of a millionaire cheated by a billionaire.
  STILL FAILING I SEE... WHINE WHINE WHINE... THEY MAKE MORE MONEY THAN ME AND I AM GRUMPY... ITS ALL I HEAR WITH YOUR SILLY NOTIONS....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 1:29pm
    
    Re: Re: The tear-jerking story of a millionaire cheated by a billionaire.
    Dave Prowse is hardly a millionaire.
    He's appearing at comic and sci-fi conventions to make money.
    He can't work at his profession (stunt man/actor) due to severe arthritis and weakness due to radiation therapy for prostate cancer.
    Sound like a millionaire to you?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Groove Tiger (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 6:33pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: The tear-jerking story of a millionaire cheated by a billionaire.
      Oh c'mon, I bet he owns a refrigerator! Free ride's over baby!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - weneedhelp (profile), 1 Jun 2012 @ 9:58am
    
    Re: Re: The tear-jerking story of a millionaire cheated by a billionaire.
    Why do you hate artists/actors so much?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Any Mouse (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 7:49pm
  
  Re: The tear-jerking story of a millionaire cheated by a billionaire.
  So... you're all for the artists except when the producers, recorders and collection societies say that you shouldn't be, then boo hoo for them. Gotcha. Why don't we just play hide and go fuck yourself?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ArkieGuy (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 10:55am

Net VS Gross
The net profits (those generated via the interNet using "approved" means) are smaller than the gross profits (those earned by the studio). Since the actors are paid on net profits, they will never make residuals. ;)

But seriously, it's easy for a studio to increase it's cost by greasing the hands of MPAA (and it's past employees that later go on to become judges dealing with copyright cases), lobbyists and politicians. I mean really, which is "better" for the industry, paying the actors or making sure the status quo is maintained?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:01am

Prowse: "I don�t want to look like I�m bitching about it, but on the other hand, if there�s a pot of gold somewhere that I ought to be having a share of, I would like to see it."

Hollywood: "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:01am

Me too!
I Still haven't gotten my cut from Mel Brooks, damn it. And I gave twice...no thirty times the performance of some silly Darth Vader.

My tie was a penis and balls, damn it. BALLS. That's comic gold right there.

You've been warned, Mel. I am coming for my Schwartz....AND my penis necktie....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Berenerd (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:16am
  
  Re: Me too!
  Your money and your ball tie went over your helmet....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Incoherent One (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 3:00pm
  
  Re: Me too!
  Yes, but you were sued by all the "Assholes" after that little Emergency Stop fiasco.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
NSILMike (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:02am

TSA officers arrested on drug charges in Conn.
http://online.wsj.com/article/AP8f7375bbf2784ab99aeea32dd45e553d.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- NSILMike (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:03am
  
  Re: TSA officers arrested on drug charges in Conn.
  Sorry... posted in wrong article.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - blaktron (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:34am
    
    Re: Re: TSA officers arrested on drug charges in Conn.
    Sad part is you don't even need to have it spelled out to know its Oxycotin. But drug advances are SOOO good for society, we don't need traditional medicine...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Duhhhh, 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:25am

Hollywood Accounting
Just go watch Mel Brooks "The Producers"... ROFL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MattP, 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:40am

Ah, the good ole Gross Profit vs. Net Profit accounting.

FTA:

"Gross profit is what you get if you are a big enough actor or producer to demand this. You get a percentage of profit based on the gross of the film � how much it makes before any costs. Therefore, you are guaranteed to get paid since the studio can�t hide anything. Very few people can demand gross points. But if you have them and your film hits big, you make millions. In fact, this can be so profitable you will sometimes see big stars forgo any salary at all except union minimum just to get these points.

Unfortunately, Mr. Prowse relates what is almost universally the case with a net profit clause. Studios almost never pay on this clause, as they claim nearly any and every expense possible to keep the film from showing any actual profit. Very few films have ever shown a net profit on the books.

How do they do this? Well first, imagine that George Lucas decided to go to New York tomorrow to talk about showing Return of the Jedi in 3D. And he stayed at the Ritz Carlton, ordered sushi at 3 a.m. from room service and used the hotel phone to call Bahrain to make prank calls.

Well, 26 years after the release of the film, the accountants at Lucasfilm are going to charge $86,000 to the costs of Return of the Jedi. I am NOT joking. This is what they do. If George Lucas utters the words Star Wars and he�s spending money, they�re putting it on the red line for one of those films.

On the flipside, Mr. Prowse would be wise to use the FORCE, aka a lawyer, to get Lucasfilm to cough up. You see, as you can tell by the above, the accounting is utter bullshit. And on a film like Return of the Jedi, Lucasfilm would be extremely reluctant to open its books in open court. Extremely reluctant because of how incredibly embarrassed studios have been in the past when they have made the mistake of doing this. Plus, the ensuing publicity would be embarrassing to Lucasfilm. Can you imagine the hedlines if Darth Vader sued George Lucas?

In short, if you have net participation on a film that has grossed hundreds of millions, you may get some dough, but you�ll have to sue to get it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 1:25pm
  
  Re:
  On the flipside, Mr. Prowse would be wise to use the FORCE, aka a lawyer, to get Lucasfilm to cough up. You see, as you can tell by the above, the accounting is utter bullshit. And on a film like Return of the Jedi, Lucasfilm would be extremely reluctant to open its books in open court. Extremely reluctant because of how incredibly embarrassed studios have been in the past when they have made the mistake of doing this. Plus, the ensuing publicity would be embarrassing to Lucasfilm. Can you imagine the hedlines if Darth Vader sued George Lucas?
  
  I would pay to see the documentary film of exactly that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jason, 13 Sep 2011 @ 12:10pm

so why does this man deserve tons of money for something he did so long ago. he should have bought stocks in the company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- HothMonster, 13 Sep 2011 @ 12:23pm
  
  Re:
  so why does this one company deserve a ton of money for something they did so long ago? They should have invested the money
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 12:16pm

I got a simple thing to say to all of you.

WHY THE FUCK DO ANY OF YOU GIVE A DIME TO MAFIAA ???

I have not payed them for anything in over 5 years now and I never will.I wait the extra week or two and then I buy my stuff used.And I do not go to a theater or support Netflix,Amazon,ITUNES,etc.

BUY USED !!! STOP FEEDING PIGS !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- crade (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 12:53pm
  
  Re:
  buying used still helps out the primary market. You are just giving them your dime indirectly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 5:07pm
  
  Re:
  Used is still helping them.
  
  Stop buying or pirate but do not in any circumstances PAY! anything for any product or SERVICE(this includes radio, Netflix and TV I'm afraid) that they can monetize.
  
  You have other options, open options that you can make use of it.
  
  The license is everything today if it is not open you are helping them become bolder.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - crade (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 8:48pm
    
    Re: Re:
    They control the laws. If you don't buy they will levy, if they can't levy they will sue, if they can't sue they will change the law so they can levy and sue. We have to take that power away before anything else can be done.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 12:25pm

toys doesnt need to license its face, bad luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
akp, 13 Sep 2011 @ 12:41pm

Re: AC
"Has any actor in this situation ever tried a legal action to pierce the corporate veil and get at the studio's profits when the shell corporation is bankrupt?"

As I understand it, this is what Peter Jackson did when New Line attempted to cheat him out of his share of the Lord of the Rings profits (using the same math).

As I also understand it, he won.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jimr (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 12:42pm

He silly to ask for a % of profit. He should have ask for a % of the gross.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hothmonster, 13 Sep 2011 @ 5:09pm
  
  Re:
  "We loved your audition, would you please be our vader"
  "yes, but i would like a % of gross on the film"
  "NEXT!"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
NullOp, 13 Sep 2011 @ 12:46pm

Stealing
If you want to know who REALLY steals from the artists look no further than MPAA. Ever wonder why so many actors setup their own companies? Now you know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 1:20pm

Prowse was reported to reply to the letter sent to him with the following:

"I find your lack of accounting disturbing."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 1:39pm
  
  Re:
  To which Sir Alec Guinness replied, "Use the Force, Dave. Use the Force."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 5:09pm
    
    Re: Re:
    To which the reply came as "any more force and I will have brown underwear"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
These are not the driods, 13 Sep 2011 @ 1:39pm

At least one lawsuit has been brought against one studio for these practices:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buchwald_v._Paramount

Cheers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PrometheeFeu (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 2:11pm

Wait, does that mean LucasArt went bankrupt before they allowed George Lucas to mess up episodes 4-6 or have the idea of filming episodes 1-3? That's amazing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PandaMarketer (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 2:40pm

comments TL;DR
What I would like to know if is anyone else is getting the same letter from Lucasfilm. If it's just him, then that's fishy. If everyone is getting them, then it's business as usual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 5:10pm
  
  Re: comments TL;DR
  Tax evasion is never business as usual.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:31pm
    
    Re: Re: comments TL;DR
    Tell that to Shell and ExxonMobil.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve, 14 Sep 2011 @ 6:36am

They have been screwing Mr. Prowse from day one. What a joke! Just like our bs "government"..."we don't have any money, we don't have any money"....but then you look at lucasfilm's lot, land and facilities. I realize there is crazy overhead but they also made beyond crazy money! Unreal how people can actually believe they can send a letter to him like that...it's not like he's living under a rock and thinking, oh well, maybe next month. episodes 1-3 sucked by the way George!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AJBarnes, 14 Sep 2011 @ 6:41am

MPAA Math lesson
Receipts from movie: $1 bazillion dollars
Cost to make move: $1 hundred million dollars
Cost lost to pirates: $3 katrillion dollars
Net profit Nothing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nicholas Alexander (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 12:02pm

Secrets and Lies
Thank you for this information. Creative accounting at its very worst - contracting in bad faith - it is commercial theft of contractual obligation.

Why can't Mr Vader, err Prowse sue them for breach of faith? It not seem so much an issue of copyright, but it is a breach of the intent of the contract and Lucasfilm should be embarrassed into paying their dues.

It is not dissimilar to the bad faith exhibited by bankers who pay themselves massive bonuses after tax payer bailouts in the UK as the cost of living sky rockets and wages are stagnant.

Star Wars would have been forgettable without David Prowse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark, 14 Sep 2011 @ 5:54pm

If it's not profitable anymore, then maybe they should put it in the public domain, and stop spending money on it!

Really... if it's not making them any money, what do they have to lose? And meanwhile, many people who might not have otherwise seen it would be legally able to!

Oh... that's right... it's not about money. It's about control.

But if that's the case, why are they being stingy about paying their actors? I mean, if they want their control so badly, why should the actors not get paid because of it? More generally, what gives them the idea that they should be able to have anything that they want without having to pay fairly for it? I'm pretty sure that's not all that dissimilar an attitude from people who pirate their movies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 7:22am

police time!
Breaking News.....

George Lucas arrested, previous owner of the skywalker ranch found buried near the outhouse!

We wondered how he afforded that place, said a neighbour, "after all, NONE of his films showed any sort of profits at all, and if you ask me they should be checking how Lucasarts gets the money to create its games, I think they're killing real people and pixellating them!"

In further news, homeless victims found in Skywalker ranch basement covered in glue with jarjar ears taped to their heads....."It's CGI, honest!" said a burbling PA as she was hauled away for fraud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MondoGordo, 20 Sep 2011 @ 12:57pm

RoTJ still in the hole ... makes sense.
Not trolling ... but if ...

George Lucas got 15% of gross
Mark Hamill got 5% of gross
Carrie Fischer got 5% of gross
Harrison Ford got 5% of gross
Jim Henson got 5% of gross
The studio got 20% of gross
The production company got 15% of gross
The SFX company got 10% of gross
ILM got 10% of gross
Distributors got 10% of gross
(that's 100% btw)
and the film cost 132 million to make ... then it will NEVER make a profit ... and will always be 132M$ in the hole ... that is simple math ... if you spend everything you earn before the bills get paid, then you'll always be in the hole.

Which is a great way for unscrupulous a-holes to screw over the little guy. Not that i want to give them any more ideas .... :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bongo houzi (profile), 2 Dec 2011 @ 12:02pm
  
  Re: RoTJ still in the hole ... makes sense.
  That is how it works. Nothing is ever profitable.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ElmiraViking, 22 Sep 2011 @ 12:01pm

Imagine how poor Greedo must feel ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2011 @ 6:38am

Well....this should help....
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20110618-17/star-wars-breaks-blu-ray-sales-records/?part=rss&s ubj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

"...the "Star Wars" Blu-ray set generated $84 million..."

So...esplain again...how is it "not profitable"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bongo houzi (profile), 2 Dec 2011 @ 12:00pm

Forbes list of top 500 richest says Lucas is a billionaire due solely to the Star Wars franchise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mojo, 8 Dec 2011 @ 11:47am

I wonder if the studios report to their shareholders that they have never made a profit?

Very unlikely, of course.

FOX to shareholders: "This quarter our movies made billions! The stock is soaring!"

FOX to actors: "This quarter we didn't make any money, sorry we can't pay you."

Wouldn't that be an immediate example of two very different accounting ledgers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 2:37pm

Springtime for hitler in germany
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris K, 11 Apr 2013 @ 5:45pm

That's not right
Hi Dave, Good for you for going public. However, now that Disney (one of the stingiest film companies in town) owns LucasFilm, you're probably going to have to sue like Peggy Lee, who eventually won. Good luck!

Christina, your Washington DC Publicist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]