From: reiher@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Peter Reiher)
Subject: Re: Highest gross movies
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 17:55:20 GMT

In article <9212181610.AA19590@acs1.acs.ucalgary.ca> jkung@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jimmy Kung) writes:
>In article <5388@othmar.lulea.trab.se> you write:
>>Nhan Tran (tran@peora.sdc.ccur.com) wrote:
>>
>>: When people talk about the highest grossing movie, do they take into
>>: account of inflation?
>>
>>No they don't ! If they did there is only ONE movie that can be considered
>>for highest grossing: Gone with the wind. 
>
>While GWTW, when recalculated in today's dollars (that's how
>Variety does it), is the top, you also have to consider the fact
>that it was re-released about 4-5 times, and that is where they
>made the real money.  

I believe that, assuming you do recalculation in today's dollars, the
original release of "Gone With the Wind" is where it did best, perhaps
better than all the other re-releases combined.  It was a phenominally
successful film, upon its initial release.  Selznick made a particularly
poor deal in which he sold the film to MGM, after one of its re-releases,
so much of the later profit from the film went to MGM, rather than to
Selznick's private studio.  (Which doesn't change the fact that the
film made the money, of course.)

>What I would like to see is films production budgets also include
>things like advertising budgets, film print costs, etc.  To
>provide a more accurate reflection on how much a film REALLY
>makes.  There seems to be a perception by many that when a film
>grosses $50 million, and the "budget" was only $30M, that the net
>profit is $20M...

The rule of thumb used to be that the costs for budget, prints, and
other releasing costs was approximately equal to the costs of making
the film.  However, with the vast budgets of today, where some films
cost $70 million, I doubt if that's still true.  Prices of prints
and advertising haven't risen as fast as the prices that have inflated
the costs of making a big budget film.  For a major release, I suspect
that if you tack $20 million on to the negative cost, you won't be far
wrong.

Another factor to consider in assessing the profitability of a film
is that not all of the gross flows back to the studio.  Some of it goes
to the theaters that show the film.  (Far too little, in the opinions
of theater owners, as I understand it, but still some.)  Studios do
not tend to release figures on how much money actually arrived at the
studio doors as a result of a given film, but some industry analysts
make estimates.

One must also bear in mind that the figures one commonly hears are
American theatrical release grosses, comprising only the theatrical grosses 
for the U.S. and Canada.  They do not include the grosses for the rest of
the world, nor the profits from videocassettes, nor the profits from sales
to pay-per-view TV and premium cable channel TV and network TV, nor any
of several other secondary sources of income.  Things tend to vary a lot,
but I believe the current rule of thumb is that a film tends to get total
grosses around three times the theatrical gross.  (The variations are
sufficient, however, that one should not try to apply this rule to 
particular films.  For instance, "1492" grossed three times as much money
in France alone as it did in its American theatrical release.)

-- 
		Peter Reiher
		reiher@wells.cs.ucla.edu

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies