Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix Lost Money?

Oh I smell the works of the Death Eaters around the Harry Potter franchise. Only their dark and forbidden magicks can result in such matters!

With the young up and coming actors destined for superstardom at the age of 10, the three main stars of Harry Potter’s mega hit films were signed into a 7 movie deal. When an eighths “other half of seven” deal came along, contracts were re-negotiated to make sure they were staying on for the full run. Fortunately, things went smooth and the Potter Elite kept their jobs.

Now the 9th highest grossing film of all time suddenly doesn’t have enough cash on hand to pay out the part of their contracts that tops up their pay with profit sharing… because the movie didn’t make any money.

Suspicious? That guy who wears tinfoil on his head says so!

Obsessed with Film reports

Despite earning just short of $1 billion from a $150 million budget – the statement claims that the July 2007 movie actually incurred a financial loss for the company of around $167 million, meaning there was no cash left for any of the talent who had net profit based deals. (I.e. a percentage of revenue minus expenses).

But where did all the money go?

The statement claims it mostly went on distribution, advertising and print costs; having us believe they continued funding expensive Harry Potter movies despite the franchise being so clearly financially poisonous.

And to prove it we have the spreadsheet tallying up the losses!

I find it a little hard to believe that they spent $150m to make this movie, rake in close to a billion bucks, and somehow be able to prove they spent $900m on promotions?

Guess they won’t be getting their Christmas bonus after all.

Consider me under the effects of the Confundus spell.

Comment with Facebook

6 thoughts on “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix Lost Money?

  1. Doesnt surprise me a studio juggling numbers to hide money from a film. As others have said above me its the little guys/gals behind the scene who really suffer.

  2. I’d say that the wonky numbers are the advertising and publicity costs of $131 million, and the “Negative Cost and/or Advance” line, which is vague and gigantic ($315 million). Someone needs to break down those numbers.

  3. Is that source actually trying to suggest that there’s some sort of fraud involved?

    Because they’re sort of missing the point. People involved in the film (usually writers, cinematographers, and other various crew who get shafted on a regular basis) who have a net deal in their contract usually NEVER end up seeing any of that money, because they refer to the total budget of the film (distribution, prints, advertising, etc.) which is set up to basically never break even.

    The money is diverted to the studio and stars by means of post-theatrical products like DVDs, toys, games, etc.

    Most of that money that funded the film was not put in directly by the studio. Overseas distributors and, most likely, the nation of England, paid in advance for most of that budget.

    I don’t know how this is news for this movie specifically, because this happens with every single major studio release.

    In the words of David Mamet: “THERE IS NO NET!”

Leave a Reply