This list, of course, assumes that profitability at the box office is where studios make their money. They don't. They make it on television.
It also gets a few details wrong (The-Numbers claims TWOK cost $12 million, but it was actually $13 million).
It also doesn't take into account the exhibitor's take of the gross.
Still, as a measure of box office grosses against stated costs, it's reasonably accurate. I'm just not sure how useful that information really is.
Yep, great points.
I think it's worth noting that the stated expenses are hard to take seriously. I remember in an accounting class a few years ago seeing an income statement for one of the Harry Potter films that made nearly $1 billion at the box office, yet according to the studio accountants, it lost hundreds of millions of dollars
Why? By the parent company (studio), charging the subsidiary (the film) 'fees' for making the movie.
The reason for this particular piece of 'earnings management' was to avoid having to pay people a % of net profits.
Anyway, thanks for sharing BigJake
. Taking these profits at face value, it must have been touch and go as to whether Nemesis
was even given the green light after the dreadful performance of Insurrection
. Bet they wish they hadn't bothered.