Could Wall St. Be The Savior Of Hollywood?
from the arbitraging-celluloid dept
Hollywood finance has been a hot topic in the media lately, as more people come to realize things like that returns on films are characterized by randomness, independent of the high paid stars that take up a large share of film budgets. And as more of the intricacies and surprises of the industry come to light, it's not surprising that more and more financial institutions from Wall St. banks to hedge funds want to invest in films. At first blush, this might be surprising, considering that the industry is struggling to find its place in the changing media landscape. But in a way it makes perfect sense. Few people realize that Hollywood studios are fundamentally banks; they do a few related things like promotion and distribution, but their main purpose is to connect filmmakers and film investors. But at the moment, they're not managing their money all that efficiently. This, then, is an opportunity for hedge funds to exploit. The question is whether funds will correctly sieze upon the opportunities. If they recognize that it's a poor idea to make major multi-film deals with stars who don't add much value, and that many production costs can be dramaticially reduced with the help of new technology, they may help impose a much needed spending discipline on films. But, on the other hand, it's possible that the hedge fund types won't appreciate the situation, and see themselves as filling a funding void for blockbusters and their spiraling budgets. This approach will do little to improve the culture and make the industry more competitive. Either way, some will argue that if filmmakers are forced to bow to Wall St., then quality will inevitably decline as everything becomes about profit. Yet Hollywood today is having this problem, and ultimately, a film can only make money if people actually want to see it.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I'm all for ANYTHING
It's completely sad that entertainment professionals (Actors, sports players, nascar drivers, pop singers... They are all leaches on the face of humanity) make more money than Doctors, engineers, people that are actually DOING SOMETHING WORTHWHILE.
I don't think anyone should get "rich" entertaining. I definitely don't think a movie actor should get millions of dollars for a single movie.
And no, Angelina Jolie's false prominade does nto constitute "helping society". Her power trip is all about showing how celebrities can take over foreign nations as it suits their needs.
Sorry for the troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tyops ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vacuous Celebrities
The problem is that"the community" is, on a whole, pretty stupid, non-contributing, and tends to seek idols that they can identify with.
Who should we idolize? Politicians are the slimiest lot, and those most successful are generally the ones that the peasants can identify with best.
The filthy rich? Though these people are often envied and even watched, people idolize them for their power and wealth, not the (sometimes) admirable traits that got them that power and wealth.
Scientists? Great thinkers? Well, the problem there is that most people don't have a clue what they do, or what they are talking about, which makes them tough to respect. Even Albert Einstein isn't respected for his contribution to society, so much as his supporting role in the PR-spun story of democracy over communism through the means of fantastical new explosives.
/Don't read popular new
//Don't vote
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not every actor who is paid an exorbitant sum of money deserves it, but likewise, not every bussinesman who takes an exorbitant sum of money deserves his share.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Can you name any who DO deserve an "exorbitant" wage?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
steve irwin did have some siginifigance because most of his work was for awareness and charity, but still you would've got drunk in the first hour of playing a drinking game for his name. and that doesn't count pronouns. way overkill.
and its not just the CNN's that waste that time its every national news in the US... internet news media is soo much better, granted this is more of an editorial site in most cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hedge funds not necessarily so 'efficient'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]