Every business is about making money or it wouldn’t be a business! Saying that the business of Hollywood is to make money is like saying the business of General Motors is to make money! DUH!

Yet both have been losing alot of money consistantly for the past few years!

Having said that though, when it comes to Hollywood – it’s business model is unique – it’s a business of failure.
563 movies were released last year – of which only 8 became blockbusters earning over $200 million, the other coming it at $194, and $187 million, and maybe 10% overall broke even.

If we look at all the product that Hollywood released, film and tv, the numbers are staggering somewhere close to 8000-10000 pieces of product
(counting each tv series episode, each film, and films that went directly to DVD but not including reality tv)

Each episode of a one hour drama costs almost a million dollars to produce, multiply that times the number of episodes (between 6 and 22) for each one hour series on the air, and then factor in those shows that were produced but failed quickly because the viewer numbers were too low, and the dollars spent are staggering..With ad revenues down, thank to a decline in viewing audiences, and the arrival of TIVO, making a profit in tv is really a crap shoot! You generate a real profit only after you produce 100 episodes, and can secure syndication!

Money is spent on scripts that never get turned into films or tv shows, money is spent on securing stars for projects that never end up coming to the screen, add that to the amount of money spent on what does get produced, then double the production costs to include post production, marketing advertising,distribution and once again the dollars spent are staggering.

It would take a lot more than ten successful Star Wars to recoup the revenue spent on all the above in one year!

The MPAA reported that the average production cost of a movie in 2005 dipped slightly to 96.2 million dollars.
Marketing costs however rose by 5.2 percent. In 2005 563 movies were released..ALOT more were produced!!!
See how the money spent on failures adds up!!

In 2005 only eight movies had raked in more than 200 million dollars at the box office compared with just five in 2004.
So 2005 turned out to a slightly better year than 2004 – but the industry profits were still down! Why? Because even though the total number of films released in the United States alone increased by 5.6 percent from 2004, the more films you make the more money you spend to make them. New releases by the major motion picture studios grossed an average of 37 million dollars in 2005, an increase of seven percent over the past FIVE years, but that was more likely because ticket prices also increased!

If Hollywood ONLY wanted to make films that made money, they’d ONLY make family films like Narnia, Star Trek, Harry Potter, Shrek, Independance Day, Jurasic Park, Apollo 13, – films that attract huge audiences in the theatre and then huge dvd and ancillary dollars!

85% of the most watched films in 2005 were FAMILY FILMS, rated PG-13!

But the Hollywood community views film making as an art form, as well as a business, and like I said, it’s business model is unique -not only is it a business of failure (more projects fail than ever succeed) – it’s also business of opinions.

I read a script I think will be a hit…a studio exec disagrees….at another studio a highly successful producer believes the script will be hit…while yet another highly successful producer disagrees, yet but one huge box office star is so passionate about the film, but an equally successful director thinks it will flop! Who is right? We won’t know until we make the film! Since Hollywood is in the business of making films or tv shows…regardless of the mixed opinions…you still have to produce product!

And if it is a hit – then what made it work? The story, the sfx, the actors, the director? All the above, one of the above??

We will never know with any certainity….but what’s been proven consistently is that most movies that are PG family movies will generally garner big box office dollars…yet even at that we can’t always be certain!

It doesnt take a mensa to know that “Brokeback Mountain” isn’t going to to be a cash cow. It wasn’t made to be a cash cow. It was made because it delivered a timely message about an unrequited love between two men that could not be shared openly in its day.

Believe me, no one expected this movie to become a box office hit. An art film that delivers a message rarely is!

Many actors choose to make movies that tell a compelling story and deliver what they consider to be “a social or political message” because they believe strongly that this is a calling for them. Every actor, producer, director longs to make important films that deliver important social/political messages that cause the viewers to reflect on who they are, and their own values and beliefs.”Movies they can be proud of!” Message movies make the Hollywood community feel better about themselves and feel as if they are making a worthwhile contribution to humanity.

Jake makes money simply for showing up everyday and acting. Whether the studio recoups their costs on the film, makes a huge windfall or loses big time at the box office,is irrelevant to him. He gets paid upfront and without points on a film.

So no Meryl, Jake’s thought process wasn’t ” Well, we won’t make any money on this, but damn, we’re going to get a message out!” HE made money! His thought process was more likely “This is an important film for me because it will stretch me as an actor AND it delivers an important social message- one that resonates with me as a liberal and it will hopefully garner me as Oscar”

I did plenty of deals for actors who took much less money to do art films that delivered a message they felt was important – then do to a more commercial film that would likely garner bigger box office revenues!

So I have no doubt that Jake and Heath, like other actors and directors and producers I worked with, chose to make “Brokeback Mountain” because it delivered the kind of social message that reflect their personal beliefs, and stretched them as actors, even as they knew it would not generate huge box office revenues.

Don’t misunderstand me – one always hope the project will resonate with a large audience, you don’t go into it saying it will fail..but you have to understand how one defines success and failure. For an actor who makes a movie like “Brokeback Mountain” having the film be nominated for an Oscar, and having your work as an actor garner you an Oscar nomination IS a huge measure of success; box office revenues become secondary!

“Brokeback” was a box office failure. But it’s an art film with a message and the Academy loves art movies with messages – it makes them all feel “elitist, artistic, morally superior” and they knew the nomination would garner enough attention that two things would likely happen:

1) Ancillary sales will gross more money
2) the message will be heard by a larger audience -even if some of that audience doesnt see the movie – it will stimulate dialogue and stimulating dialogue is what message movies aim for!

Besides that, from a purely artistic perspective, its a beautiful movie, well written, well acted, well directed, with beautiful cinematography. Deserving of a nomination? Yes! Box office hit? No! Art film with a message DEFINATELY!

Do you think Gus Van Zants movies are made with the intention of making money? Puhleeze!!

Let’s not forget – at it heart, Hollywood considers itself an ART community and by fiat loves to make “art films”.

For all the blockbusters and successful films Hollywood has produced, it has produced three times as money art films and twice as many huge flops that barely recoup their total production/marketing costs.

“Crash” was a small inde film – with a great cast – but the film is over two years old. It premiered at The Toronto Film Festival in 2004! It build up an audience slowly through word of mouth. But not a big audience by any stretch of the imagination!

Did it make a money? It more likely broke even and with the Oscar win will probably make a profit in DVD distribution. But it’s hardly a cash cow! It’s a personal film for Paul Haggis based on his being carjacked ten yrs ago!

As for your premise that Hollywood is losing money because big screen tvs and high film ticket prices keep families and teens out of the theatre…well you’re wrong!

85% of the most successful films were FAMILY films.

A recent study conducted by MPAA revealed that “Most movie-goers were satisfied with their recent experiences at the movies and felt the movies were a “good investment of their time and money,” the Nielsen study reported.”
“Despite increasing competition for consumers’ time and entertainment dollars, theater-going remains a satisfying constant in people’s lives,” said MPAA chief executive Dan Glickman.

“That said, we can’t bury our heads in the sand. We have to do more to attract customers and keep regulars coming back.”

Indeed! But the question remains is Hollywood willing to accept and understand WHAT it must do to attract those customers..or will it continuously fail to learn the obvious lesson?

Where there is life….there is always hope!

You are also assuming that everyone who voted Republican agrees with you. I voted for Bush. Whoops, there goes that argument.