20th century fox had made so much money off of Return of the Jedi, that they made Revenge of the Nerds as a way to lose money. It grossed $60 million on a budget of $6-8 million
20th century fox had made so much money off of Return of the Jedi, that they made Revenge of the Nerds as a way to lose money. It grossed $60 million on a budget of $6-8 million
This movie (series) may be the best example of how things do not hold up.
The entire thing is basically a commercial for racism, homophobia, sexual assault and rape.
I can’t believe my parents let me watch shit like this as a kid.
fluffysmaster on
Lastliner on
The curse of success.
bourj on
“Clap your hands everybody! And everybody clap their hands!”
Best film ever.
AdventurousTip2880 on
Why would they make a film to intentionally “lose money”
bourj on
Everyone trashing this film on here should note that it’s posted by a user named Long Duck Dong. Also a fantastic character.
Known-Activity1437 on
That sounds false. No company has ever said, “You know what, we’ve made enough money this year. Let’s intentionally try to lose money.”
frank1934 on
Pagan_Zod on
Grossing $60 million on a $6-8 million budget is not losing money. That was pretty damned good for 1884. By comparison, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (also released in 1984) grossed $87 million on a budget of $17 million, which was considered a great success. Also this: they don’t make sequels out of flops that lose significant revenue.
Accomplished_Band877 on
And now the nerds are taking control of the planet
GreenGorilla8232 on
Your title is complete nonsense.
Blitzdog416 on
cryptotope on
[Citation needed]
I could see Fox wanting to find a quick way to *spend* money, but it wouldn’t make sense for them to want to *lose* money.
Spending some of this year’s profit to make a movie that earns the money back the next year would be a way to ‘even out’ year-over-year profits. I can see the potential usefulness there for tax and planning purposes–effectively transferring some profit from a very good year to a normal or less-good year. Further, spending money on a new film production may unlock various tax credits, subsidies, and other incentives–a dollar ‘spent’ by the studio doesn’t necessarily ‘cost’ a dollar at the end of the year.
But outside some very weird edge cases, there’s no tax or other benefit to just straight-up *losing* money.
culb77 on
So, this is false. I’m looking for a legit source and can’t find one.
The one thing I found was a Reddit post, liked to a YT video that’s deleted. In those comments was one that sort of explained why someone may have thought this:
They made so much money on ROTJ that they needed to make another movie ASAP otherwise those profits would be “wasted”.
Wasted how? Well, they would have more profit than expected and nothing to do with it, so it would just get taxed and thats it.
Instead, they wanted to put that into another movie that could be made for “free” (free-ish) because the value that would have been lost to tax could just be used to make another movie. So may as well.”
17 Comments
Ok…
This movie (series) may be the best example of how things do not hold up.
The entire thing is basically a commercial for racism, homophobia, sexual assault and rape.
I can’t believe my parents let me watch shit like this as a kid.
The curse of success.
“Clap your hands everybody! And everybody clap their hands!”
Best film ever.
Why would they make a film to intentionally “lose money”
Everyone trashing this film on here should note that it’s posted by a user named Long Duck Dong. Also a fantastic character.
That sounds false. No company has ever said, “You know what, we’ve made enough money this year. Let’s intentionally try to lose money.”
Grossing $60 million on a $6-8 million budget is not losing money. That was pretty damned good for 1884. By comparison, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (also released in 1984) grossed $87 million on a budget of $17 million, which was considered a great success. Also this: they don’t make sequels out of flops that lose significant revenue.
And now the nerds are taking control of the planet
Your title is complete nonsense.
[Citation needed]
I could see Fox wanting to find a quick way to *spend* money, but it wouldn’t make sense for them to want to *lose* money.
Spending some of this year’s profit to make a movie that earns the money back the next year would be a way to ‘even out’ year-over-year profits. I can see the potential usefulness there for tax and planning purposes–effectively transferring some profit from a very good year to a normal or less-good year. Further, spending money on a new film production may unlock various tax credits, subsidies, and other incentives–a dollar ‘spent’ by the studio doesn’t necessarily ‘cost’ a dollar at the end of the year.
But outside some very weird edge cases, there’s no tax or other benefit to just straight-up *losing* money.
So, this is false. I’m looking for a legit source and can’t find one.
The one thing I found was a Reddit post, liked to a YT video that’s deleted. In those comments was one that sort of explained why someone may have thought this:
[Gentlescholar_AMA](https://www.reddit.com/user/Gentlescholar_AMA/)
“The phrasing on this is stupid.
They made so much money on ROTJ that they needed to make another movie ASAP otherwise those profits would be “wasted”.
Wasted how? Well, they would have more profit than expected and nothing to do with it, so it would just get taxed and thats it.
Instead, they wanted to put that into another movie that could be made for “free” (free-ish) because the value that would have been lost to tax could just be used to make another movie. So may as well.”
So no, they didn’t try to lose money.
NERDS NERDS NERDS
Taxation is theft. That is all.