The guy who owns pic related is a billionaire. Why doesn't

>>1438792
He's distributing the risk.

Hedging. Why risk 10% of your wealth on one investment when you don't have to.

>>1438792
Films are hit or miss. Studios rely on the law of large numbers to turn a profit. And when you're playing that game, the more cash you have, the better.

How can I invest $1000 into one of these Hollywood films and get some nice returns?

>>1438792

Lol nigga I worked in film for 3 years.

A lot of movies lose money. It is a gamble everytime. Even capeshit. That latest Fantastic 4 movie lost money.

>>1439022
That's because the latest Fantastic 4 movie was a shitshow that was only created so Fox could hold the license. They have to keep making movies or Marvel gets FF back.
I don't think they even spent very much on marketing.

>>1438945
You can't. Besides, $1000 doesn't even pay the weekly salary of a single stagehand getting chewed out for serving the wrong type of water to generic movie cunt #8.766.019

>>1438792
Why spend your own money when other people will put up the budget.

Also don't put all your eggs in one basket.

Also, a $100 million dollar film need to make roughly $350 million dollars to be profitable. (100m production budget, 75-100m P&A, only 50% of ticket sales -- theater takes the rest.)
Yes you do get a bit extra by loaning the production company the budget at a high interest rate and from international rights, but that can be offset by paying backend to your above-line talent (movie stars, directors).

He's better off putting a fraction of that into individual productions, pooling it with other people's money and making a profit on every second film.

Also, I've said this before on this board. Distribution is where the money is.
IP is a nice way to make money if you have the capital and the sense for what audiences want.