Brad Pitt: Softbank Sumo Wrestler!

How about

“Brad’s Break Down”

It can be about how Brad was sad cause Angie got the custody of kids and he told these to that guy, And how that guy was such an angel saving him and was shoulder for his cry cause Maniston is away filming. LOL Good cover?!

The tabs make up stories all the time so what’s the big deal. How stupid are you trolls. Remember a couple of years ago Angelina help a pap whose bike had broke down. He got a ride with Angelina and the kids.
..
I don’t think Brad or Angelina live their lives worry what wlll the tabloids write.

i am sure brad and angie know their children can read. they don’t expose their children to the dregs of American Society…. TABLOIDS

Their children will be exposed to ALL the world, NOT SUPERFICIAL HOLLYWOOD.

# 86 aj @ 07/02/2009 at 5:37 pm
.
To Passing Through:
There is something wrong with your numbers about Shreck 3’s profits.
Only 50% of the gross is for the studio. The other half is for the theater’s owners.
Then, if Shreck3 made $799 worldwide million, the studio only made $400 million.
Because this, they say that a movie need two times his budget to make a profit. And that doesn’t include marketing expenses.
But if a movie only makes two times his budget, the marketing expenses and the profit came from DVD and television rights.
.
+++++++++++++++
.
Basically you’re saying I forgot to divide the BO profit of $279MIL by 2. Which may have been the case because I was doing it on the fly while I was fixing a computer at work.
.
As I understand it, studios include marketing costs when they’re crunching the numbers to see how much a movie has to make at the BO before they turn a profit. That’s why I added the estimated $100MIL for marketing to the production costs. We already know that Shrek 3 made a bundle at the theaters, so subtracting marketing from the DVD sales total isn’t necessary.
.
Also, when it comes to how much Cam Diaz made on that movie, the rumor mill said $30MIL, so I got the percentage based on that. She could well have gotten a higher percentage. Typcially actors get points on the BO gross or net, but occasionally they’re in a positon to be able to negotiate for post-theatrical release profits as well. Certainly all the principles in Shrek were, The studio’s really makes it’s money after the theatrical run. But, as I said, the numbers for international DVD sales, worldwide DVD rentals, worldwide broadcast tv and PPV aren’t available to anyone outside the studios and producers guild. I doubt the actors got a piece of the profits from promotional tie-ins, but you never know.

# 102 NO @ 07/02/2009 at 6:09 pm
.
How about
.
“Brad’s Break Down”
.
It can be about how Brad was sad cause Angie got the custody of kids and he told these to that guy, And how that guy was such an angel saving him and was shoulder for his cry cause Maniston is away filming. LOL Good cover?!
.
++++++++++++++++
.
ROTFLMAO! That’s a definite OUttaTouch story. It’d be 6 pages long with 8 sidebars. That’s a little joke about the interminable tabloid report I’ve been working on - for days…mainly because my brain shuts down after about an hour of that crap - covering the June issues of OuttaTouch. Honestly - these people have more sidebars than sense.

aj @ 07/02/2009 at 5:37 pm To Passing Through:
There is something wrong with your numbers about Shreck 3’s profits.
Only 50% of the gross is for the studio. The other half is for the theater’s owners.
Then, if Shreck3 made $799 worldwide million, the studio only made $400 million.
Because this, they say that a movie need two times his budget to make a profit. And that doesn’t include marketing expenses.
But if a movie only makes two times his budget, the marketing expenses and the profit came from DVD and television rights.
#################
.
That isn’t how it works. The studios have different contractual agreements for revenue splitting depending upon the theater corporation showing the film. It also depends on the film. A sure thing wil get the studio a bigger share because filling seats is practically guaranteed. The Shrek 2 and Shrek 3 films were as close to sure bets as you can get so I am sure the theaters made a much smaller percentage and maybe had to even bid to win the right to show them.
.
Likewise, the revenue sharing overseas is a different calculation than in the US. The studios make a bigger share overseas.
.
Though dvds are on the decline these movies were still released before that and even then every family with kids has these dvds.

I meant Brad fans

To Passing Through:
No. I said that the correct numbers are:
$ 400 million from theaters
$ 90 million from DVD (maybe a little more, cause i think the studio gets more than 50%)
= 490 million - 160 million (budget) - 100 million (marketing) = 230 million profit.

But the profit is bigger because there is also internacional DVDs sales and television rights.

But I only saying that a movie needs more than two times his budget to make a profit, cause only half of the money goes to the studio, and the studio needs to pay the picture and the marketing.

Cute

To grouncontrol:
I think you are right about tentpoles. They get more than 50% (maybe 60%), but they never gets all the money.
And other kinds of movies can get less than 50%.
I read sometime that the studios gets 40 to 60% of the gross.

Sorry for the double posts. I don’t know how i can delete one of them.

JP baby #7? never heard that one. Hags would be pulling their pubic hair out if that were true. The last nail in their imaginary coffin of the JP’s demise. OUCH!!!!