Hollywood film production, marketing costs rise sh

[David Allen Grove]

Hollywood film production, marketing costs rise sharply

 

www.chinaview.cn 2004-03-25 04:00:29

 

LOS ANGELES, March 24 (Xinhuanet) -- The average cost of making and marketing films by leading Hollywood studios passed the threshold of 100 million US dollars for the first time last year, Jack Valenti, head of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), said Wednesday.

 

Speaking to attendees of annual ShoWest movie theaters trade fair in Las Vegas, Valenti said the negative costs per film climbed to 63.8 million dollars, an 8.6 percent increase over 2002.

 

Meanwhile, the cost of prints and advertising soared by 27.5 percent to 39.05 million dollars, mainly due to increases in the cost of television advertising, he said.

 

The combined increase of 15 percent marked the steepest annual increase in production and marketing outlays since 1997, when the average figure increased by 27 percent, according to Valenti.

 

The leading Hollywood lobbyist urged studio executives to make budget discipline "a fervid priority."

 

The MPAA comprises seven leading Hollywood studios, namely Disney, MGM, Paramount, Universal, Sony, Fox and Warner Bros. Pictures.

 

Valenti noted that the MPAA companies are feeling a profitability squeeze -- at least in terms of domestic theatrical revenue, though rising DVD/VHS sales and rentals are offsetting the pinch.

 

Despite the sharp increase in film production and marketing cost, Valenti said the year 2003 was still a "good year" for the US movie industry. Added the 10.85 billion dollars in international box office, Hollywood's worldwide box office for 2003 totaled 20.34 billion dollars.

 

Ticket sales at the domestic US box office fell last year to 9.49 billion dollars, off 0.3 percent from 2002's record haul of 9.52 billion dollars. The number of tickets sold dropped further, off 4 percent from 2002's 1.64 billion to 1.57 billion.

 

MPAA member studios did manage to squeeze more box office dollars out of individual titles in 2003. Although new films released by MPAA companies fell to 194 from 220 in 2003, the average gross for an MPAA release increased by 27 percent to 41.6 million dollars from 32.8 million dollars. Enditem

[Michael Stumpf]

That's a no brainer. Funny how Valenti didn't point out the REAL reason film production costs have skyrocketed....stars salaries!!!!!!!!

 

Heck, having a leading male say...Tom Cruise and a leading female, say Julia Roberts and you're at $45 million dollars already!!!

 

I've been in the business for 11 years now, not much has changed in below the line costs. Our union rates don't even increase with inflation. Film stock has gotten cheaper. Rental houses practically give equipment packages away now that there so much competition. Location fees haven't changed much.

 

They need to start looking at the lined pockets of the "stars" as well as the producers and directors, who now almost all take "points."

 

I remember when I started in this business the "average" Hollywood film cost about 20 million dollars to make.

The "big" stars like Cruise, Hanks, etc etc were making $6-8 million per movie.

That was big money then.

 

Then along came Jim Carrey, who demaned $10 million on (well I can't remember which film) and the salary war among stars began!

 

Valenti is recommending "budget discipline" as a fervid priority.

Well, maybe they should just start to reconsider the star's, producer's, and director's salaries, and do like the professional sports teams are required to do...SALARY CAPS!!! The "stars" don't like it...tough, there's MILLIONS of other ACTORS out there who'd LOVE to do it for a fraction of the cost. And, if they say, "well those "no names" don't have box office draw" BS

 

They all started somewhere, and every year there's DOZENS of new "it" people who get all kinds of attention and bring in the crowds! They just have to look more for those "diamonds in the rough." There's also ALWAYS a ton of movies that do REALLY well without any big names. Often times, nothing makes me happier when a hyped movie with a bunch of ego stars bombs. Drops those rates right down. That's just sweet. :lol:

 

It just stinks, how they always blame us little guys.

[David Allen Grove]

That's a no brainer. Funny how Valenti didn't point out the REAL reason film production costs have skyrocketed....stars salaries!!!!!!!!

 

Valenti is recommending "budget discipline" as a fervid priority.

Well, maybe they should just start to reconsider the star's, producer's, and director's salaries, and do like the professional sports teams are required to do...SALARY CAPS!!! The "stars" don't like it...tough, there's MILLIONS of other ACTORS out there who'd LOVE to do it for a fraction of the cost. And, if they say, "well those "no names" don't have box office draw" BS

I like the spending cap idea Michael!

 

I would love to see a Pie chart that shows the REAL budget of a production which includes everything. I imagine it would look something like a pac-man shape with the lead actor being the pac man eating up the rest of the pie (our salaries).

 

I would like to contact Mr. Valenti, who happens to be my wife's, grandpa's first cousin, and give him some insight on how much financial struggling is going on below the line. I don't think he understands it that well. Or maybe he does and just doesn't care....

[David Allen Grove]

Runaway Production -

The full article: http://www.azcentral.com/ent/movies/articl...animator27.html

 

"Everyone's been going nuts about things going overseas," says Rusty Mills, "but nobody ever notices when it happened in our industry. We've been dealing with this for years."

 

But not everyone is that lucky. Norman has bumped into a fair number of ex-co-workers around town -- bagging groceries, shaking the trees for work.

 

"To see your job disappear, everything you worked and trained for? There's nothing that prepares you for that," Norman says.