Forum - View topicNEWS: Former Madhouse Head: Poppy Hill May Not Have Recouped Costs
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
HeeroTX
Posts: 2046 Location: Austin, TX |
|
|||
Just because I like the exercise, here is a posted budget from "Harry Potter & The Order of the Phoenix" (as an example of "movie studio accounting"): http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100708/02510310122.shtml I use this because if nothing else, it has a cumulative cost for prints. The TOTAL overall cost for prints for HP5 was about $29mil. HP5 at it's widest release ran on 4,285 screens. "From Up on Poppy Hill" in widest release ran on 457 screens. FUoPH had a release that was about 10-11% of the release of HP5, but JUST for arguments sake, let's call it 15%, which would make FUoPH's "print" cost around $4.3mil. In 2010, ALL advertising in Japan was 5,842 billion yen: http://www.dentsu.com/books/pdf/expenditures_2010.pdf HP5 was released in 2007, total US advertising in 2007 was $148bil: http://www.marketingcharts.com/television/tns-issues-2007-us-advertising-expenditures-wrap-up-spend-up-just-02-3952/ HP5 (cumulative, all time) advertising was $131mil. So HP5 was 0.0885% of all advertising in 2007. If we make the LAUGHABLE assumption that FUoPH was an equal percentage of all advertising as HP5, then total advertising as a component of Japanese total is: 5.2 million yen or $64,000, just for argument's sake, let's round that up to $1mil or 80 million yen at current rate (that'd make FUoPH promotion 1.3% of ALL advertising expenditures in Japan) $4.3mil (prints) + $1mil (advertising) = $5.3mil (let's round up further to 5.5) $5.5mil + (let's call it $22mil, equal to quoted Earthsea figure, despite Earthsea's longer running time) = $27.5mil in costs needed to recoup. Let's ignore international BoxOffice and presume Mr. Masuda is xenophobic enough to only think Japanese money is useful. So, at a GENEROUS accounting of these costs, we now have $27.5mil total cost (production + prints + advertising), off a take of $56mil, that's costs of 50% of the gross. FUoPH ran in Japanese theaters for about 11 weeks, assuming the studio took at least 50% over those 11 weeks, they at minimum broke even. According to CNN (WMMV) US studios take a declining take: http://money.cnn.com/2002/03/08/smbusiness/q_movies/ Let's assume that Japanese studios do the same and use a logical progression (start at middle of CNN stated top: 75%, decline by 10% each week until the defined bottom: 35% by 5th-6th week as projected): Total take over 11 weeks for FUoPH = $29.8mil, which would put the movie over $2mil in the black assuming ludicrous costs. Without ever factoring foreign BoxOffice or DVD/BD sales. |
||||
|
||||
|
GATSU
Posts: 15321 |
|
|||
|
Heero: Harry Potter's a shitty example, but even Deadline noted that one of the movies lost money. And, again, you're still not taking into account what Ghibli had to pay LeGuin, just to approve Earthsea. It's not a public domain story yet.
|
||||
|
||||
|
HeeroTX
Posts: 2046 Location: Austin, TX |
|
|||
The accounting is ONLY to show cost spent on prints by a movie studio, the article showing it speaks to the "misleading" accounting on other items. As for Earthsea, that has nothing to do with From Up on Poppy Hill, so it doesn't matter if they had to pay LeGuin. The quoted cost for Earthsea was $22mil, IF the costs for LeGuin were included (I don't think they were, I think that's just production) then FUoPH would DEFINITELY be cheaper than $22mil. If LeGuin's money is NOT included, then it's a good benchmark. Either way, LeGuin's fees should only make FUoPH CHEAPER in comparison, not more expensive. (and just for reference, the whole POINT of the Harry Potter article is that HP did NOT ever "lose" money, WB just makes it look that way on paper so they don't need to pay a portion of net profit out to people who have that in their contracts) |
||||
|
||||
|
dtm42
Posts: 14084 Location: currently stalking my waifu |
|
|||
Seems that way. Yeah it may have cost a lot to make, but surely with those numbers it shouldn't be financially in trouble. And hey, if Waterworld can finally make a profit after well over a decade then surely this will turn a profit too, even with Hollywood accounting factored in . . . |
||||
|
||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group