Darth Vader Is The Most Successful Star Wars Character Ever, But Still No Return Of The Jedi Residuals For Actor
from the these-are-not-the-profits-you're-looking-for dept
Wired has put together a very cool Milennium Falcon infographic illustrated by Michael Cerwonka, to show the breakdown of revenues generated by the Star Wars franchise over its entire history (thanks to Jacob for sending this in). By combining data and estimates, they clock the total in at a cool $33-billion (click for big version):
They also found out which character is (unsurprisingly) the most successful overall:
What we all want to know, of course, is which character is worth the most? On that, the privately held Lucasfilm is coy. “Darth Vader is one of the most popular Star Wars characters across most product categories,” a Lucasfilm spokes-Wookiee says. “Your instincts are correct.”
This is amusing, because as you may recall, last year we discussed the fact that the actor who portrayed Darth Vader has never been paid residuals for Return of the Jedi because Lucasfilm claims the movie still hasn't turned a profit. One has to assume that, somewhere in that $33-billion figure, there are enough Return revenues to cover the $32.5-million it cost to make, even adjusting for inflation. But of course, that's not how Hollywood accounting works.
I know some will say too bad and blame the actor for signing the contract, but it's still impossible to accept the notion that the 15th highest-grossing film ever has never become profitable. That can only happen with crafty accounting, where the studios use various techniques to keep revenues just below costs on paper while still pulling in millions of dollars for themselves. Maybe it's up to actors and other creative workers to demand better contract terms—or maybe it's just another good reason for them to escape the Hollywood system.
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: darth vader, hollywood accounting, residuals, star wars
Companies: lucasfilm
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Necessary Expenses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Necessary Expenses.
Boooo spell-check; Hooray Beer!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Necessary Expenses.
The average net profit of movies made by this guy? http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0093051/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Necessary Expenses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Necessary Expenses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Necessary Expenses.
Me neither, but I'm pretty sure they get infested by weevils...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The riches are easy to explain. How you can screw over the artists so badly is what is reprehensible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wait. Underarms it???
Is that why Hollywood accounting usually smells funny?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
*understand
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah. I was just messing with you because it was funny typo. :)
Autocorrect will probably be the catalyst that starts WWIII.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dirty Pirates
http://youtu.be/Bc1Zc4qsTQk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quantum mechanics
/marijuana
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Quantum mechanics
You can either know profitability or know where the money is actually at. You can't have both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Quantum mechanics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Quantum mechanics
If you can, you'll have created the Grand Unified Theory and be one of the most famous physicists of all time :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Quantum mechanics
"Do or do not. There is no try."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Quantum mechanics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Quantum mechanics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Quantum mechanics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Quantum mechanics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Director's cut...
If that's the case, then it's a pity the actors weren't given a similar deal!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Director's cut...
Alec Guiness was!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Director's cut...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Director's cut...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Director's cut...
You are thinking of Dave Prowse. Dave Prowse was the man inside the mask - right up to the point where it was taken off!
Hayden Christiansen was the revealed face of Darth Vader in Return of the Jedi and always has been.
Err no - it was originally Sebastian Shaw
Hayden Christensen was photoshopped in for the 2004 DVD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Director's cut...
Really? Then who played Obi-Wan Kenobi?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Director's cut...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Director's cut...
Too much of that 70's blue smoke I guess! ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's certainly possible. Each film has been released to the cinema several times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jedi Mind Trick
These are not the profits you are looking for...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shouldn't $33 Billion be $4.5 Billion
Of the $33 billion figure, only a portion of that ($4.5 Billion) is from the movies--as per the infographic you posted.
Is it likely that items like toys or books should be related to the movie's profit?
Granted, even with the $4.5billion, I would expect that ROTJ has turned a profit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shouldn't $33 Billion be $4.5 Billion
But that's part of my point because... kinda funny, isn't it? If you or I were to make a successful toy or a book based on something Hollywood created, they would sue us into the ground and claim all our profits belonged to them. When an actor like the Inspector Spacetime guy tries to do something fun on the side with the material, the studio says nuh-uh.
But if a Hollywood studio makes a successful toy or book based on their own movie, then the profits have nothing to do with that all of a sudden - they don't go on the balance sheet, even in part, for the film itself, despite the film being the driver of some/all of the sales, and despite the merchandise plans/costs often being formulated alongside the movie from the very beginning these days (with some movies created almost entirely for merchandising reasons, like Cars 2). And the only reason things are structured like that is to give them a way to make millions from a movie without reporting a direct profit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shouldn't $33 Billion be $4.5 Billion
I'll repeat myself: and they want us to respect copyright.. Right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Shouldn't $33 Billion be $4.5 Billion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Shouldn't $33 Billion be $4.5 Billion
Mind you I'm not assuming this is the case, I'm just wondering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Shouldn't $33 Billion be $4.5 Billion
Movie Studio X plans to make Film Y. So, they establish a company, Film Y Inc., and that company will pay hundreds of millions of dollars to Movie Studio X, as some sort of 'fee'. Any income for that film goes into Film Y Inc., and then goes back out again to Movie Studio X. That way, the accountants can wave a balance sheet and say the film never made a profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shouldn't $33 Billion be $4.5 Billion
Oh, except that they have to report that.
Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shouldn't $33 Billion be $4.5 Billion
Mind you, I still don't accept that ROTJ has not turned a profit. That's an utter mega-metric buick load of BS that only a hollywood accountant would believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shouldn't $33 Billion be $4.5 Billion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shouldn't $33 Billion be $4.5 Billion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The missing link
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
-Paying Hollywood for the right to produce Starwars movies and games and merchandise, etc.
-Paying Hollywood $1.01 in royalties for every $1 earned.
-Paying Hollywood for the right to film your movie at a Hollywood studio.
-Paying the tax bills for the Hollywood executives and studios collecting the royalty payments (why should they have to spend of their royalty revenue on taxes when Star Wars products can pay the taxes for them!)
-Paying Hollywood to hire an accountant to make up #'s and send an accounting statement to Star Wars actors who expect but won't ever get royalty payments.
See, it's a VERY expensive process making movies!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A good question
If the best movies are not making a profit (long before digital piracy), then I don't understand how piracy is hurting the industry.
Ok trolls, please explain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A good question
If the best movies are not making a profit (long before digital piracy), then I don't understand how piracy is hurting the industry.
Ok trolls, please explain."
This, times 1000. ShillTrolls(tm), please explain either this above question, or else how can you justify all the accounting tricks employed to keep the actual artists/creators from getting paid.
Explain, or you will never have justification to complain again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is someone came before him.
That Someone: Darth Vader.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disturbance in the force
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We do know the movie has made a profit, thank you very much. Unless you've redefined what profit is. Profit is what income you earn once you've recouped your initial costs/investments. As said in the article, RotJ cost $32 million. The movie has made WAY more than that in sales of copies of the movie since then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
you're a retard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guy signed a stupid contract, and got shafted as a result of it - agreeing to get paid AFTER profits and points are removed, not before.
His choice, he signed it, his lawyers certainly helped him out with it, and there you go.
Stop whining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As others have said, these greedheads have built Empires (literally) by cheating, swindling, and telling lies, yet they expect me to respect their "intellectual property" because, well shucks, it's just the right thing to do, and some poor sap might not get paid if I don't. Seems to me like that poor sap ain't gonna get paid anyway, so why should I give a flying bantha poodoo?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Stop defending crooks.
And I'm not a "pirate," so don't even try to turn that one around on me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Signing for net money is never a good idea. Getting people to SIGN for net money is. It's their business model. The guy signing for net should have asked what percentages of gross were gone before the net would be considered. He would have likely found the numbers way too high to justify a net deal, and would have taken a much smaller number of gross if he could have gotten it.
As for pirate, I don't consider it an issue here, why even bother to bring it up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You'd be in the minority here then. When you contractually promise actors a share of the profits, and then use unethical accounting tricks to make a clearly profitable film look unprofitable on paper, you're a crook. That doesn't take talent, just a lack of morals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You justify fraud and theft in the hope of the real talent making your product valuable not having the legal knowledge to defend themselves against your lies. That's pretty slimy, don't you think?
"As for pirate, I don't consider it an issue here, why even bother to bring it up?"
Because you morons always do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Because if I didn't, you'd read my line "Stop defending crooks," and then be all "You say that now, but you and Pirate Mike and the rest of the gang here defend crooks like the Pirate Bay and Kimdotcom all the time! COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT! BIG SEARCH COOKIES!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think hurricane head's been sleepin' around, he has.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In stories where people are merely expressing their desire for better options or promoting better business models, these fools always attack people as "pirates", even in cases where they state how they pay for products (yep, that's happened to me on many occasions). They won't stop attacking people for the potential of lost revenue, and even directly attack artists for daring to choose models that don't include their beloved gatekeepers.
Yet, in stories like this where labels and studios are clearly ripping artists off, they change their tune and defend the actual theft! Apparently stealing from artists is OK in their eyes so long as you have a lawyer draft something beforehand...
Yes, you moronic anonymous fool, Dave Prowse did sign a contract. He signed a contract guaranteeing him money on the back of the profits from one of the surest fire hits in movie history, that went on to be one of the most successful movies of all time. That you justify him being robbed through accounting trickery and lies pretty much undermines every point you've ever made about the supposed lost sales from "piracy". You're the thief, liar and fool here, and the sooner new business models remove people like you from the equation, the better off real artists will be. Sorry if that means that the corporations you worship no longer get paid, but that's a small price to pay for honesty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Call a spade a spade...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SlashFilm explains the Jedi accounting trick
"26 years after the release of the film, [if George Lucas spends the weekend at the Ritz Carlton in New York] 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."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's a question...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hollywood
http://www.ofcelebrity.com/the-50-hottest-inspiring-female-fitness-models-to-follow-on-instagra m/12067
Thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]