Hollywood accounting#Practices

Hollywood accounting (also known as Hollywood bookkeeping) is the opaque or "creative" set of accounting methods used by the film, video, television and music industry to budget and record profits for creative projects. Expenditures can be inflated to reduce or eliminate the reported profit of the project, thereby reducing the amount which the corporation must pay in taxes and royalties or other profit-sharing agreements, as these are based on net profit.

Hollywood accounting gets its name from its prevalence in the entertainment industry—that is, in the movie studios of Hollywood at a time when most studios were located in Hollywood. Those affected can include writers and actors, but also production companies, producers and investors.{{Cite news|last=McDougal|first=Dennis|title=Judge Must Solve Buchwald-Murphy Whodunit: Lawsuits: Final arguments in multimillion-dollar complaint against Paramount are over. Both sides accuse the other of stealing idea for $300-million movie.|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-12-29-me-1176-story.html|access-date=March 23, 2014|newspaper=Los Angeles Times|date=December 29, 1989}}{{Cite news|last=Vincent|first=Mal|title=After 61 films, Connery remains much in demand|url=https://www.baltimoresun.com/1995/02/20/after-61-films-connery-remains-much-in-demand/|access-date=March 23, 2014|newspaper=The Baltimore Sun|date=February 20, 1995|quote=I hired my own bookkeepers to keep a watch on everything. Hollywood bookkeeping can be very suspect.|archive-date=March 23, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140323080804/http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1995-02-20/features/1995051036_1_sean-connery-bond-dragonheart|url-status=live}} A number of cases of creative accounting have been successfully pursued in court and have resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in awarded damages.

Practices

Hollywood accounting can take several forms. In one form, a subsidiary is formed to perform a given activity and the parent entity will extract money out of the film's revenue in the form of charges for certain "services". For example, a film studio has a distribution arm as a sub-entity, which will then charge the studio a "distribution fee"—essentially, the studio charging itself a sum it has total control over and hence controlling the profitability report of a project.{{Cite news|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/how-hollywood-accounting-can-make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/|title=How Hollywood Accounting Can Make a $450 Million Movie 'Unprofitable'|last=Thompson|first=Derek|date=September 14, 2011|newspaper=The Atlantic|access-date=March 23, 2014}}

Another form of Hollywood accounting is a reverse tobashi scheme, in which the studio unjustly cross-collateralizes the accounting of two projects and shifts losses from a flop onto a profitable project by shifting costs involving internal operations. This way, two unprofitable projects are created out of one on paper alone, primarily for the purpose of eliminating net participation liabilities. The specific schemes can range from the simple and obvious to the extremely complex. Generally, Hollywood accounting uses permanent creative accounting practices (such as charging an arbitrary distribution fee from one sub-entity to another) rather than temporary ones (like the Repo 105 scheme) since the measures are meant to permanently distort the bottom line of a film project.

Three main factors in Hollywood accounting reduce the reported profit of a movie, and all have to do with the calculation of overhead:

Production overhead: Studios, on average, calculate production overhead by using a figure around 15% of total production costs.
Distribution overhead: Film distributors typically keep 30% of what they receive from movie theaters ("gross rentals").
Marketing overhead: To determine this number, studios usually choose about 10% of all advertising costs.

All of the above means of calculating overhead are highly controversial, even within the accounting profession. Namely, these percentages are assigned without much regard to how, in reality, these estimates relate to actual overhead costs. In short, this method does not, by any rational standard, attempt to adequately trace overhead costs.

Because of the studio's ability to place arbitrary charges along the value chain, net participation "points" (a percentage of the net income as opposed to a percentage of the gross income of a film) are sometimes referred to as "monkey points". The term is attributed to Eddie Murphy, who is said to have also stated that only a fool would accept net points in their contract.{{Cite news|last=McDougal|first=Dennis|title=Murphy Movie Made Millions But Stayed in Red, Studio Ledgers Say |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-02-04-mn-537-story.html|access-date=March 23, 2014|newspaper=Los Angeles Times|date=February 4, 1990}}{{Cite news |last=Leibman|first=Jordan H.|title=Fatal Subtraction: The Inside Story of Buchwald v. Paramount.|url=http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/415182-1.html |access-date=March 23, 2014|newspaper=AllBusiness.com|date=November 1, 1993|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090201071322/http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/415182-1.html |archive-date=February 1, 2009}}

"By the way, you called net profit participation points yesterday 'monkey points.' What's the origin of that, do you know?" I asked Eddie [Murphy] as I started to pick up my papers. "Well, it's like 'stupid' points. Stupid to take the points." "Won't be any net profits?" "You sit there with your points going, 'Eeeh, eeh, eeh, eeh, eeh'."

Actress Lynda Carter on The Late Show with Joan Rivers commented "Don't ever settle for net profits. It's called 'creative accounting'."The Late Show with Joan Rivers. Fox Network. Air date: February 9, 1987

Many insist on "gross points" (a percentage of some definition of gross revenue) rather than net profit participation. This practice reduces the likelihood of a project showing a profit, as a production company will claim a portion of the reported box-office revenue was diverted directly to gross point participants. The studios rarely agree to gross participation, generally only when the person has considerable leverage, such as an A-list star, producer, or director whose participation is vital to the project.

Examples

=1980s=

According to Lucasfilm, Return of the Jedi (1983) "has never gone into profit", despite having earned $475 million at the box office against a budget of $32.5 million.{{Cite web |url=https://www.slashfilm.com/lucasfilm-tells-darth-vader-that-return-of-the-jedi-hasnt-made-a-profit/ |title=LucasFilm Tells Darth Vader that Return of the Jedi Hasn't Made a Profit!? |first=Peter |last=Sciretta |publisher=Slashfilm |date=April 5, 2009 |access-date=July 19, 2013}}

Art Buchwald received a settlement from Paramount Pictures after his lawsuit Buchwald v. Paramount (1990). The court found Paramount's actions "unconscionable", noting that it was impossible to believe that Eddie Murphy's 1988 comedy Coming to America, which grossed $288 million, failed to make a profit, especially since the actual production costs were less than a tenth of that. Paramount settled for $900,000,{{cite web |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-03-17-me-3895-story.html |title=Buchwald, Partner Win $900,000 From Studio|website=The Los Angeles Times |date=March 17, 1992 }} rather than have its accounting methods closely scrutinized.

Michael Uslan and Benjamin Melniker, executive producers of the 1989 film Batman, filed a breach of contract lawsuit against Warner Bros. and producers Jon Peters and Peter Guber in Los Angeles County Superior Court on March 26, 1992.{{Cite book | first1 = Nancy | last1 = Griffin | first2 = Kim | last2 = Masters | author-link2=Kim Masters|title = Hit & Run: How Jon Peters and Peter Guber Took Sony For A Ride In Hollywood | publisher = Simon & Schuster | year = 1997 | pages = [https://archive.org/details/hitrunhowjonpete00grif/page/158 158–174] | isbn = 0-684-80931-1 | chapter = Hit Men | chapter-url = https://archive.org/details/hitrunhowjonpete00grif/page/158 }}{{cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1992/03/27/holy-lawsuit-batman/618f302a-4ec5-4a9d-a413-e94d2b98ced5/|title=Holy Lawsuit, 'Batman'!|last=Masters|first=Kim|author-link=Kim Masters|work=The Washington Post|date=March 26, 1992|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241130134035/https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1992/03/27/holy-lawsuit-batman/618f302a-4ec5-4a9d-a413-e94d2b98ced5/|url-status=live|archive-date=November 30, 2024|access-date=January 24, 2025}} Uslan and Melniker claimed to be "the victims of a sinister campaign of fraud and coercion that has cheated them out of continuing involvement in the production of the 1989 film Batman and its sequels. We were denied proper credits, and deprived of any financial rewards for our indispensable creative contribution to the success of Batman." A superior court judge rejected the lawsuit. Total revenues of Batman have topped $2 billion, with Uslan claiming to have "not seen a penny more than that since our net profit participation has proved worthless". Warner Bros. offered the pair an out-of-court pay-off, a sum described by Uslan and Melniker's attorney as "two popcorns and two Cokes".{{cite magazine |first=Olly |last=Richards |date=September 1992 |title=Trouble in Gotham |magazine=Empire |pages=21–23}}

=1990s=

Winston Groom's price for the screenplay rights to his 1986 novel Forrest Gump included a 3% share of the profits; however, due to Hollywood accounting, the 1994 film's commercial success was converted into a net loss, and Groom received only $350,000 for the rights and an additional $250,000 from Paramount.{{Cite news|last=Weinraub|first=Bernard|title='Gump,' a Huge Hit, Still Isn't Raking In Huge Profits? Hmm.|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/25/movies/gump-a-huge-hit-still-isn-t-raking-in-huge-profits-hmm.html|access-date=March 23, 2014|newspaper=The New York Times|date=May 25, 1995}}

According to screenwriter Ed Solomon, Sony claims Men in Black, a 1997 film he wrote, has never broken even, despite grossing nearly $600 million against a $90 million budget.{{Cite news|last=Butler|first=Tom|url= https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/men-in-black-profits-ed-solomon-104552239.html |title=1997 hit 'Men In Black' is still yet to make a profit says screenwriter

|work=Yahoo!|date=December 31, 2019|access-date=May 21, 2020}}

=2000s=

Gone in 60 Seconds (2000) grossed $240 million at the box office, but The Walt Disney Company declared a $212 million loss, primarily through Hollywood accounting as explained on NPR.{{Cite web|url=https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2010/05/the_friday_podcast_angelina_sh.html|title=We See Angelina's Bottom Line|website=NPR.org|date=May 14, 2010 |language=en|access-date=2019-09-29}} The real figure is likely closer to $90 million.{{Cite news|url=http://www.slate.com/id/2118819|title=Gross Misunderstanding: Forget about the box office| first=Edward Jay |last=Epstein|date=May 16, 2005|access-date=2006-12-30|work=Slate}}

Stan Lee, co-creator of the character Spider-Man, had a contract awarding him 10% of the net profits of anything based on his characters. The film Spider-Man (2002) made more than $800 million in revenue, but the producers claim that it did not make any profit as defined in Lee's contract, and Lee received nothing. In 2002 he filed a lawsuit against Marvel Comics.{{Cite news|title=Lawsuit filed by Spider-Man creator|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2458083.stm|access-date=March 23, 2014|newspaper=BBC News|date=November 13, 2002}} The case was settled in January 2005, with Marvel paying $10 million to "finance past and future payments claimed by Mr. Lee".{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/29/business/media/marvel-settles-with-a-spiderman-creator.html|title=Marvel Settles With a Spider-Man Creator|last=Ives|first=Nat|date=2005-04-29|work=The New York Times|access-date=2018-06-05|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}}

The 2002 film My Big Fat Greek Wedding was considered hugely successful for an independent film, yet according to the studio, the film lost money.{{Cite news|title=My Big Fat Greek Wedding: Most Profitable Independent Film in History, With Over $600 Million Worldwide Receipts, Supposedly Loses Over $20 Million|url=http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/my-big-fat-greek-wedding-most-profitable-independent-film-in-history-with-over-600-million-worldwide-receipts-supposedly-loses-over-20-million-70743087.html|access-date=March 23, 2014|newspaper=PR Newswire|date=July 1, 2003}} Accordingly, the cast (with the exception of Nia Vardalos who had a separate deal) sued the studio for their part of the profits. The original producers of the film sued Gold Circle Films in 2007 due to Hollywood accounting practices because the studio has claimed the film, which cost less than $6 million to make and made over $350 million at the box office, lost $20 million.{{Cite news|last=Munoz|first=Lorenza|title=Hanks sues over profit on 'Greek Wedding'|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-aug-08-fi-hanks8-story.html|access-date=March 23, 2014|newspaper=Los Angeles Times|date=August 8, 2007}}

Peter Jackson, director of The Lord of the Rings (2001–2003), and his studio WingNut Films, brought a lawsuit in 2007 against New Line Cinema after an audit. Jackson stated this is regarding "certain accounting practices". In response, New Line stated that their rights to a film of The Hobbit were time-limited, and since Jackson would not work with them again until the suit was settled, he would not be asked to direct The Hobbit, as had been anticipated.{{Cite web |author=xoanon |url=http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2006/11/19/24053-peter-jackson-and-fran-walsh-talk-the-hobbit-2/ |title=Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh Talk THE HOBBIT |publisher=The One Ring |date=November 19, 2006 |access-date=July 19, 2013}} Fifteen actors sued New Line Cinema, claiming that they have never received their 5% of revenue from merchandise sold in relation to the movie, which contained their likenesses.{{Cite news |url=https://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2007-06-06-rings-suit_N.htm |title=15 actors sue New Line Cinema over 'Lord of the Rings' profits |work=USA Today |date=June 6, 2007 |access-date=July 19, 2013}} Similarly, the Tolkien estate sued New Line, claiming that their contract entitled them to 7.5% of the gross receipts of the $6 billion hit.{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/02/11/financial/f115544S35.DTL&tsp=1 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080214055825/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/02/11/financial/f115544S35.DTL&tsp=1 |archive-date=2008-02-14 |agency=Associated Press |title=Tolkien Estate Sues New Line Cinema |date=February 12, 2008 |first=Alex |last=Veiga |website=SFGate}} According to New Line's accounts, the trilogy made "horrendous losses" and no profit at all.{{Cite news |url=http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10693123 |title=The Hollywood shell game |first=Karyn |last=Scherer |work=The New Zealand Herald |location=Auckland |date=December 13, 2010 |access-date=July 19, 2013}}

Michael Moore sued Bob and Harvey Weinstein, of Miramax Films, in February 2011, claiming that they had used creative accounting to deprive him of his share of profits for the film Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004). Eventually, Moore reached a settlement with the Weinsteins and the lawsuit was dropped in 2012.{{Cite web |url=https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/michael-moore-harvey-weinstein-fahrenheit-911-lawsuit-291581 |title=Michael Moore, Harvey Weinstein Settle 'Fahrenheit 9/11' Lawsuit |first=Matthew |last=Belloni |work=The Hollywood Reporter |date=February 15, 2012 |access-date=March 23, 2014}}

The 2005 film Sahara grossed $119 million against a production budget of $160 million, resulting in a $105 million loss for Paramount Pictures. However, due to Hollywood accounting tactics, the loss was only reported as $78.3 million.{{Cite web |date= 15 April 2007 |title= $78 million of red ink? |last= Bunting |first= Glenn |work= Los Angeles Times |url= https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-movie15apr15-story.html |access-date= 10 February 2021}}

=2010s=

A Warner Bros. receipt was leaked online in 2010, showing that the hugely successful movie Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007) ended up with a $167 million loss on paper after grossing nearly $1 billion.{{Cite web |url=http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100708/02510310122.shtml |title='Hollywood Accounting' Losing In The Courts |publisher=Techdirt |date=July 8, 2010 |access-date=July 19, 2013}} This is especially egregious given that, without inflation adjustment, the Wizarding World film series is one of the highest-grossing film series of all time both domestically and internationally.{{Cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2015/04/13/the-most-successful-movie-franchises-in-history-infographic/|title=The Most Successful Movie Franchises In History|work=Forbes|access-date=2016-11-23}} The Hollywood accounting in the Harry Potter case included a $60 million interest charge on a $400 million budget over two years – an interest rate far higher than industry standard{{Cite web|url=https://deadline.com/2010/07/studio-shame-even-harry-potter-pic-loses-money-because-of-warner-bros-phony-baloney-accounting-51886/|title=STUDIO SHAME! Even Harry Potter Pic Loses Money Because Of Warner Bros' Phony Baloney Net Profit Accounting|last=Fleming|first=Mike Jr.|date=2010-07-06|website=Deadline|language=en|access-date=2019-09-29}} – as well as high distribution and advertising fees paid out to Warner Bros. subsidiaries and sister companies.

The Walt Disney Company lost a $270 million lawsuit in 2010 to Celador over accounting tricks used to mask profits on the Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (1999–2007) licensed franchise in the United States: "ABC artificially deflated fees the network should have paid the production company BVT and Disney-owned Valleycrest, which in turn decreased Celador's share of revenue. Loss of merchandising revenue was also claimed."{{Cite news |last=Belloni |first=Matthew |date=2010-07-12 |title='Millionaire' verdict! Disney loses big |url=http://thresq.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/07/millionaire-verdict-disney-loses-big.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100712082237/http://thresq.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/07/millionaire-verdict-disney-loses-big.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=2010-07-12 |department=Esq. |work=The Hollywood Reporter |access-date=22 April 2020}}

Don Johnson won a lawsuit in 2010 against Rysher Entertainment which had attempted to wipe profits for the show Nash Bridges (1996–2001) off the books to reduce Johnson's 50% backend stake to zero; the jury awarded Johnson $23.2 million in damages.{{Cite news |first1=Paul |last1=Bond |first2=Matthew |last2=Belloni |date=2010-07-15 |title='Nash Bridges' verdict! Now Don Johnson wins big! |url=http://thresq.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/07/nash-bridges-verdict-now-don-johnson-wins-big.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100715055151/http://thresq.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/07/nash-bridges-verdict-now-don-johnson-wins-big.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=2010-07-15 |department=Esq. |work=The Hollywood Reporter |access-date=2019-09-29}}

21st Century Fox was found guilty of using Hollywood accounting practices to defraud the producers and stars of the procedural drama Bones (2005–2017) and ordered to pay $179 million in missing profits, with the arbitration ruling made public in 2019.{{cite magazine |first=Eriq |last=Gardner |url=https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/fox-rocked-by-179-million-bones-ruling-lying-cheating-reprehensible-studio-fraud-1190346 |title=Fox Rocked by $179M 'Bones' Ruling: Lying, Cheating and 'Reprehensible' Studio Fraud |work=The Hollywood Reporter |date=February 27, 2019}} Fox subsequently contested the $128 million punitive damages component in Los Angeles County Superior Court, whereas it declared it would pay the $51 million in actual damages awarded by the arbitrator. In September 2019, the lawsuit was settled on confidential terms.{{Cite news|url=https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/fox-settles-bones-suit-ending-profits-case-stunned-hollywood-1238843 |title=Fox Settles 'Bones' Suit, Ending Profits Case That Stunned Hollywood |first=Eriq|last=Gardner|work=The Hollywood Reporter|date=2019-09-11|access-date=2022-10-22}}{{Cite news|url=https://deadline.com/2019/09/bones-profit-lawsuit-settlement-emily-deschanel-david-boreanaz-fox-disney-barry-josephson-1202731588/ |title='Bones' Profit Battle Ends As Fox & Disney Settle With Stars Emily Deschanel, David Boreanaz & EPs |first=Dominic|last=Patten|work=Deadline Hollywood|date=2019-09-11|access-date=2022-10-22}}

Despite grossing $911 million against its $55 million budget, 20th Century Fox wrote down the 2018 Freddie Mercury biopic Bohemian Rhapsody as a $51 million loss.{{Cite news|last1=Fleming |first1=Mike Jr. |last2=Patten |first2=Dominic |title='Bohemian Rhapsody's Anthony McCarten Sues Queen Biopic Producers Over Profits; Claim The Blockbuster Is $51M In The Red Will Rock Hollywood |url= https://deadline.com/2023/11/bohemian-rhapsody-profits-lawsuit-queen-freddie-mercury-writer-anthony-mccarten-fox-1234876595/ |work=Deadline Hollywood|date=17 November 2021|access-date=18 November 2021}}

Despite grossing $153 million against a $26 million budget, the 2019 romantic comedy Yesterday reportedly lost $87.8 million, according to Universal Pictures accounting sheets.{{Cite web|url=https://deadline.com/2020/05/yesterday-net-profit-statement-loss-universal-beatles-danny-boyle-1202925277/ |title='Yesterday' Net Profit Statement Shows It's The Same Old Song On Hollywood Accounting |first=Anthony|last=D'Alessandro|work=Deadline Hollywood|date=May 5, 2020|access-date=May 5, 2020}}

=2020s=

In July 2021, a lawsuit brought by developer and executive producer Frank Darabont along with Creative Artists Agency against AMC Networks over profits from TV series The Walking Dead was settled for $200 million, plus sharing of certain future revenues.{{Cite news|url=https://deadline.com/2021/07/walking-dead-lawsuit-settled-frank-darabont-caa-amc-1234794718/ |title='Walking Dead' Lawsuit Settled For $200M Between Frank Darabont, CAA & AMC |first=Dominic|last=Patten|work=Deadline Hollywood|date=2021-07-16|access-date=2022-10-22}} The plaintiffs had alleged that AMC had deliberately set the imputed fees "paid" by the eponymous AMC Networks cable TV channel to AMC Studios – both subsidiaries of AMC Networks – far below fair market value, and thus illegitimately curtailed the payments due to the plaintiffs under their profit-sharing agreements.{{Cite news|url=https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/walking-dead-creator-frank-darabonts-280m-suit-amc-headed-trial-1168047/ |title='Walking Dead' Co-Creator Frank Darabont's $280M Suit Against AMC Headed to Trial |first=Eriq|last=Gardner|work=The Hollywood Reporter|date=2018-12-10|access-date=2022-10-22}}