3 ms·
If by 'film backers' you're referring to the executive producers that pay money for the movie, I highly doubt they're stupid enough to fall for hollywood accou
by DevX101 15y ago
If by 'film backers' you're referring to the executive producers that pay money for the movie, I highly doubt they're stupid enough to fall for hollywood accounting and actually lose money. Their fee is in that $938 million somewhere.
More likely, the losses are probably for tax reasons or to screw over anyone involved in the film that signed a 'percent of net' rather than a 'percent of gross' deal.
EDIT: See link below for how wealthy individuals finance films because they WANT the film to lose money on paper. This gives them large tax deductions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_finance#Tax_schemes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_finance#Tax_schemes
- jonnathanson 15y agoThis. The smart money involved in film financing wets its beak before the accounting actually begins. Gross percentage points, hefty producers' fees on top of those gross points, salaries on top of those fees, generous slices of ancillary revenue streams and foreign territory sales, and so forth. A Hollywood film is basically a vehicle designed to enrich its participants, and allow them tax deductions on the nominal loss after everyone's taken a taste of the profits. If you're someone with net points in a movie -- the screenwriter, say -- good luck ever seeing a dime. You're at the bottom of a pretty big pyramid.
- seizetheday 15y agoYou make a good point. If film financiers are getting screwed like the article perpetuates then why are Hollywood films getting made at all? Let alone with astronomically high budgets. Just a point of clarification and correct me if I'm wrong but executive producers are almost never the ones who put up the actual money unless they're say George Lucas (e.g. Red Tails). Instead they represent the investors to make sure everything goes smoothly with the film.