Hollywood Accounting: How A $19 Million Movie Makes $150 Million... And Still Isn't Profitable
from the a-ham-sandwidch dept
We've written about the wonders of Hollywood accounting before. It's a series of tricks pulled by Hollywood studios to make most of their movies look unprofitable, even when they're making a ton of money. The details can be complex, but a simplified version is that every studio sets up a new "shell" company for each movie -- and that company is specifically designed to lose money. The studio gives that company the production budget (the number you usually see) and then also agrees to pay for marketing and related expenses above and beyond that. Both of those numbers represent (mostly) actual cash outlays from the studio and are reasonable to count as expenses. Then comes the sneaky part: on top of all that, the studios charge the "movie company" a series of fees for other questionable things. Many of these fees involve no real direct expense for the studio, but basically pile a huge expense onto the income statement and ensure that the studio keeps getting all of the movie income -- rather than having to share the profits with key participants -- long after the movie would be considered profitable under regular accounting rules.Here's a hypothetical example of how this could work in practice, using round numbers just to make the point (these aren't directly accurate numbers, but the concept is). A studio funds A Movie with a production budget of $100 million. It sets up AMovieCo Inc. and gives it the production budget money. The studio then spends another $50 million on marketing and puts that down as an expense as well -- though, with some of the big studios, some of this money involves paying itself for advertising on its own properties. Still, even if we assume that's real money spent, you might think that AMovieCo now needs to make back $150 million to be profitable. But... the studio (which, again, controls AMovieCo completely) then tacks onto all of that, say, a $250 million "distribution fee." Now, while there may be some money spent on actually distributing the film, the number is almost completely bogus, and much higher than the actual expense for the studio. Very little actual money needs to change hands here -- it's just a fee on the books (a fee they are effectively charging to themselves). And it's not just "distribution" but a variety of additional charges. On top of that, the studio may then charge "interest" on that money, even though it's really just lending money to itself. What it all means is that rather than becoming profitable at ~$150 million (the actual money spent), AMovieCo now needs to earn over $400 million before anyone with a cut of the profits sees an additional dime from the movie, thanks to completely imaginary accounting entries on the books.
Over on Kevin Smith's (really, really, fascinating) Smoviemakers podcast, Smith recently interviewed filmmaker Scott Derrickson, who has made a name for himself in the horror film world. The whole interview is fantastic and well worth listening to, starting with part one. However, right at the beginning of part two, Derrickson reveals how he effectively got shafted on one of his most well known films, The Exorcism of Emily Rose.
Scott Derrickson (SD): It made $75 [million] domestic and $150 [million] worldwide...Basically, it's the same story as always. The net doesn't exist... but because of the extra massive "fees" the studio tacks on, it makes back many times its money before it even has to go anywhere near paying the writer and director to whom it promised 5%.
Kevin Smith (KS): Nice. You're a true filmmaker, you know exactly what your movies made everywhere...
SD: Hellllll yeah.
KS: It's a badge of honor.
SD: And to all the young filmmakers listening, I had 5% of the net of that movie. That was in my contract. And it cost $19 million. And it made $150 million worldwide. There's no net. That's how movie math works.
KS: So even you were not above being screwed by the system.
SD: I told my attorney, the next time you're negotiating my net profit for a movie, ask for a ham sandwich instead.
KS: 'Cause you'll get something.
SD: 'Cause I'll get something [laughter]
Related to this, it comes as no surprise that later in the podcast, Derrickson talks about his recognition that the real future in movies is being able to make them much more cheaply, and outside of studio control. He talks about being influenced by the movie Monsters, which was made for a few hundred thousand dollars, but which he notes would have probably cost a studio $50 million to make. At that point, he realized that to survive in this business, he had to be able to learn to make movies much more cheaply:
SD: The other thing that was happening at that time, was I was watching the business change dramatically.... The movie that was a paradigm shift for me was the sci-fi movie Monsters. Have you seen that movie?They then discuss his new movie, Sinister, which had a $3 million budget (which shocks Smith, who insists it looks like a movie that's much more expensive). Of course, in many ways, this goes back to the discussion we've been having here for many, many years -- responding to the old school movie studio guys, who demand that we answer how could they possibly continue to make $200 million movies. One answer, which we've pointed out time and time again, is that the question is the wrong one. Any business should be asking how it can make its product profitably -- not how it can keep its costs high. No one in the tech industry asks "how can we continue to make $5,000 computers?" They ask "how can we make profitable computers" and one answer is to make the product more efficiently. It's great to see filmmakers like Derrickson not just get that, but then celebrate what that means for him artistically and financially as well.
KS: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
SD: It's this great sci-fi movie where this guy, for $800,000 and his little barebones crew, with a small digital camera, made a movie that would have cost Warner Bros. $50 million to make.... He was one of the first of this new generation who grew up with his laptop. He did like 250 visual effects in the movie on his own laptop. And he made a $50 million movie for $800,000. I saw that happening. I saw what Jason Blum was doing with the Paranormal Activity movies and I said, you know what, the business is changing and you gotta evolve or die. And so part of my interest in doing a movie so small is that I want to be a part of what's happening right now. And I want to be a front runner. I want to be good at it.
SD: I want what matters to matter to me.... Knowing that I had final cut in the movie, knowing that's what it was about, I've never had more fun or been more relaxed while making a movie, because I just wasn't worried about how it would do. I'm making this movie because when it's done I'm gonna see it.... I think a lot of filmmakers go through the experience.... you have that difficult studio experience.... you come out of that experience, and it's not just that 'if you die on a swords, it's gonna be my sword,' it's that thing that 'I'm going to make something that's 100% pure. I'm just going to make something 100% pure...'In the last few years we've been hearing and seeing similar things from a number of filmmakers, recognizing that perhaps the challenges that the movie industry has faced have been self-imposed in large degrees. The industry got used to doing things one way and have had trouble adapting. But, of course, the actual artists and creators figure this stuff out and they adapt... even while the big studios still play their accounting tricks. And have no fear, with a movie this cheaply made, Derrickson notes that if the movie does okay, it could make him "rich" based on the way he structured the deal this time around. He teamed up with Blumhouse Productions (who backed Paranormal Activity) and while they're using a traditional distributor (which anyone still has to do for a real theatrical release), the economics this time around are quite different than for a film where a major MPAA studio is playing the usual accounting tricks.
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
Filed Under: hollywood, hollywood accounting, kevin smith, profits, scott derrickson
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's interesting to see that the artists are actively trying to route around the MAFIAA. It seems this will be their demise: becoming irrelevant both for artists and for their fans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why should anyone even care about their ripoff World.
Find your own destiny and Fuck them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The answer to both will be virtually zero.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:Doubter
Sinister made 77.7 million at the box office off a 3 million dollar budget....hate to say eat your words
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And I'm sure they just view the films as commercials for whatever toys and videogames they want to sell that make a better profit for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Even though it is "illegal" it is essentially impossible to stop since the "services" sold between master company and puppet are not on the market and therefore cannot be prized independently. Not to mention the time it takes to find those in the books when investigating. It is completely immoral, don't get me wrong, but it is a fact of life. If you can get the government to pay you instead of the other way, every direct interessant in the "business" will be happy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However, they way Hollywood approaches micro-entity accounting is closer to how Enron and Worldcom pulled off their massive Accounting scandals. THey set up chell companies which absorbed huge losses while all the income was piped up to the master companies. The master companies showed a profit, while the shell companies died off. Eventually, that fact that they were hiding expenses using micro-entity accounting came to light. They collapsed. If the fees are accurate, Hollywood needs to streamline, because they are pulling an Enron. If they aren't accurate representations of the costs, then they are committing fraud. Either way, they are using Micro-Entity Accounting in ways that violate the principles of accounting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
1) When an employee Whistleblower goes to the SEC/IRS/ect.
2) When the company can no longer shuffle around debts and folds
3) When someone who is harmed by it sues.
Any other scenario is a variation of the above 3. Since they supposedly pay taxes on the income, and aren't actually losing money, 1 and 2 aren't likely to happen. Only in scenario 3 will the possible fact that the fees charged to the movie are excessively higher then actual costs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
By creating companies that make little money on paper they make companies that pay little in taxes too, since corporate taxes are based on net profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It will be interesting to see where things go but laws are already being passed to ensure that tax liabilities aren't spirited out of countries with excessive royalty/licensing payments.
20 years ago when I looked at the books of the local multiplex it was clear they were only making about 20 cents per seat on ticket sales for new releases. The rest was entirely made on franchise sales (popcorn, drinks). It was clearly at the point then where the distributors were killing the golden goose (and multiplexes popped up because larger theatres weren't economic anymore - for the same reason) and I see it now in terms of the quality of the newer multiplexes and the (dire) quality of the audio (it's been so bad at times I've walked out and demanded a refund. I don't go to a theatre to hear bass bins driving square waves - distorted audio totally ruins the experience)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can easily believe it was made for only $800,000. And despite that, it was more engrossing and entertaining than some of the more recent films I've seen (which had $100 million budges).
Which goes to show one important thing. Quantity does not equal quality. You can have the biggest budget imaginable but it won't mean squat if you don't have a decent story. Explosions and CGI DO NOT a great movie make.
Now, cue the trolls who come in on every Kevin Smith related bit to take shots at him. As well as the others who will come in to say, "Yeah this guy, the director, is a nobody. What else has he made? Oh, nothing." Or something to that effect. Yet, we, the usual people commenting here on Techdirt, are the ones who hate artists. [rolls eyes]
And not a one will wag a finger or play the morality card regarding Hollywood accounting. They always manage to twist things around and blame the ones who sign the contract, as opposed to those who find ways to fiddle with the contract to cheat the ones who signed it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unfortunately the press keeps reporting weekly box office like filmmaking is a winner/loser game - the implication being if a movie makes money it's good, and if it loses money it's bad.
It's nothing the average moviegoer should care about. You don't buy Pepsi or Coke depending on which one is making more profit that quarter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The formula for a great movie has been the same since movies were invented - good direction, good cast and a good story. That is what matters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Was that like two girls one cup, but with urine?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Budget and Quality
Budget always has some impact on quality. Although Robert Rodriguez El Mariachi was brilliantly finessed, and well enough crafted to suck many people into the story in spite of the budgetary lack, the inability to afford synch sound equipment did impact on the finished product.
There has always been a base line of what must be spent on equipment & media just to achieve technical adequacy. And then you need people capable of using the tools to achieve adequacy, which may necessitate a budget to hire a good sound editor, say. Without basic technical adequacy, most audiences are unlikely to be able to achievve the necessary willing suspension of disbelief. Even with a good story, every snap crackle and pop has the power to jar the audience out of it.
That said, when Robert Rodriquez was starting out, the lion's share of the bottom line expense for film was in the film, equipment and prints to distribute it. (It was eliminating the need for distribution film prints that enabled Rodrigues to make a feature film for $7,000.) That's why studios would release movies they didn't expect to make a huge profit in only a few theatres; even studios didn't make prints lightly.
As improvements and economies in technology have shifted the balance, today the digital part is cheap, the cast and crew cost more. The budget needn't number in the tens of millions, but even so, there is still a base cost. You have to start with a decent camera and a reasonable level of skill to make a film that the average person can watch without cringing. Even though my cell phone claims to film HD, the miniscule lens makes it inadequate to film a feature film. There has to be a big enough budget to allow the image to be reasonable and the sound to be good. The minute a film looks amateur, you've lost half the audience.
Which is not to say that Hollywood hasn't been inflating budgets (and accounting creatively) probably from the beginning. Being able to claim a large price tag helps justify high ticket costs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Budget and Quality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Budget and Quality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Budget and Quality
Audio equipment:$4000.00
Computer:$2000
Software:$2500
Estimates but close. Your in business. All you need is talent and a good story, which really falls under the talent thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Budget and Quality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Budget and Quality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Budget and Quality
It's all down to taste, of course. But if you're going to try telling me that a film made in the early 90s is a good barometer of what's possible today, or that a $50 million movie is automatically better than a $3 million movie simply because more money was spent on it, I'm going to laugh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: so true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember
I'm sure AJ will be here at any moment to explain the "but . . . but . . . PIRACY!" position in all of this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Remember
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hollywood bloat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood bloat
Wait for the rep theatre or DVD release [not blu-ray]. Funny thing; I've not seen a first run movie in a theatre since they butchered The Spirit. There are a wealth of good movies no one has heard of (because they were made by indies, and the studios/distributors chose not to push them) in the remainder bins in local supermarkets. At least in Canada.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hollywood bloat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hollywood bloat
With my tongue slightly in my cheek - why don't you support indie movies on their first-run theatrical release then?
Oh, and The Spirit was a Lionsgate production, which strictly speaking is an independent studio.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood bloat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are indy houses out there that show this stuff, Portland OR has the Hollywood theater and they showed documentaries and all number of local fair. To sell out crowds even.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only a fool signs a net deal in Hollywood. That isn't because there is never a net (although there rarely is) but rather because a net deal puts you at the back of the bus for any payment. Smart people get percentage gross, percentage after production costs, or similar.
Claiming that studios just dump random and unsupported large sums onto productions just doesn't seem to be supported, as it would be the sort of business move that would get companies into trouble (worse for public companies, clearly).
I think someone has been telling you old wives tales.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If a movie never achieves a net profit, then the movie industry should collapse from all the money pits they have made. But they don't because they are being dishonest and using loopholes to get out of paying people what they are owed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is one thing though in the above article that I am not sure is entirely accurate. Yes, forming corporations for each film is the rule. However, it is not at all clear that each such corporation is under the direction and control of the studios. There are certain legal consequences if this was the case, so it seems more likely the actual relationship is more nuanced to avoid such consequences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We all know the real reason that "Return of the Jedi" never recooped is because Pirate Mike and his lackeys uploaded it to Pirate Bay 2 days before it was released into theaters... And Aaaargh, Piracy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
averaje_goe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Return of the Jedi was released in 1983, the Pirate Bay wasn't founded until 20 years later in 2003.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Who is going to prosecute Hollywood studios for that conduct - all the pro-IP lawyers in the DOJ, formerly of the RIAA, et al?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Right after the section I quoted, he pointed out that there was no gross participation in the film. So, no.
Only a fool signs a net deal in Hollywood. That isn't because there is never a net (although there rarely is) but rather because a net deal puts you at the back of the bus for any payment. Smart people get percentage gross, percentage after production costs, or similar.
Again, no gross participation here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When one party to the contract is an established gorilla, pretty much the only negiotiation open to a starting out film-maker (or actor/writer/musician) is to sign or not to sign. It isn't a question of foolishness, but an imbalance of power. And although digital technology has dramatically improved indie options, getting indie films released theatrically remains extremely difficult.
Your contention that hollywood budgets are not absurdly inflated is unsupported by logic. The technology costs a fraction of what it used to cost. (Do they even make film prints any more?) Even you acknowledge there is rarely a net, which means that, in reality, royalties are rarely paid. Real costs have gone down (not a little, a *lot*) yet movies cost more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nobody is saying their budgets aren't inflated. What I am saying is there is no indication that 250 million dollar empty fees are being dropped on films.
There is a big difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Studio Lawyer: Let's talk about giving you a percentage of the net
Director's Lawyer: How about we negotiate a much smaller percentage of gross?
Studio Lawyer: Umm...no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think the % gross guys are right, If every bill for a major Hollywood film is done as % gross + cost then a movie will never make money after the cost part is covered. The simplest solution is to outlaw % gross as a payment method. There is a reason the books and contracts are never allowed to be opened up. Lord of the Rings Example Note that the entire system is vertically integrated to the point that % gross is even a problem.
Its like we got stuck in a Mel Brook's show that fixed the "what if we succeed" problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One thing you gotta say about these guys is that they're pro's. Evil, soul-devouring, hypocritical pro's, but pro's nonetheless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
payments
The reason artists and directors moved to this was precisely BECAUSE of the hollywood accounting system.
Ask Sigourney Weaver or the Star Wars cast how much they made from Alien or the original Ep4 (answer: nothing, except Alec Guiness who insisted on a fixed fee because he knew how the game worked)
Hollywood has always been about crooked accounting systems, in the same way that the RIAA has always been about shafting artists.
The irony is that these two entities are small beans in the overall scheme of money. Google could purchase all the Hollywood studios and record labels with money found down the back of the sofa (It's rumoured that Sony bought into the media makers simply to cut down on hassles it was encountering because of VCRs), as could most of the telcos or cable companies.
Sooner or later one of them might just do this. Youtube alone is worth far more than any Hollywood studio and the easiest way to shut down the nuisance litigation is a hostile takeover of the litigants, followed by tossing the more troublesome staff under a bus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
crap I think ootb is contagious...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why is it 9 out of 10 movies are about...
just askin'...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Class Action
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is Max Bialystock in the house?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lord of the Rings
The sad fact is that its a situation where over 100% gross is given out so you cant make money if you wanted to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piece of the gross!
Cartoons taught us something back then!
Freakazoid: Always ask for a piece of the gross, not the net. The net is fantasy.
Alien: Yeeennngggg! Piece of the gross!
http://youtu.be/bHL91HQzhuc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Box Office Revenues
Source: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/the_hollywood_economist/2005/05/gross_misunderstanding.html
An other perspective from the above cited article:
"Consider, for example, Touchstone's Gone in 60 Seconds, which had a $242 million box-office gross. From this impressive haul, the theaters kept $129.8 million and remitted the balance to Disney's distribution arm, Buena Vista. After paying mandatory trade dues to the MPAA, Buena Vista was left with $101.6 million. From this amount, it repaid the marketing expenses that had been advanced—$13 million for prints so the film could open in thousands of theatres; $10.2 million for the insurance, local taxes, custom clearances, and other logistical expenses; and $67.4 million for advertising. What remained of the nearly quarter-billion-dollar "gross" was a paltry $11 million. (And that figure does not account for the $103.3 million that Disney had paid to make the movie in the first place.)"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Box Office Revenues
In fact, most of the money made goes directly to the studios. The first two months profits go entirely to them, with the theaters getting percentages after that. This is the reason concession stand prices are astronomically high, the theaters use the money generated from them to essentially stay in business.
For someone with the username "artistrights", you don't seem to be denying that Hollywood Accounting exist and does take place. Very much screwing over and violating artists rights.
One might almost draw the conclusion that despite using the username "artistrights" that you care very little for the artists. In point of fact, your comment history seems to show you care about "artists" if by "artists" one means "labels/studios/RIAA/MPAA". You wouldn't happen to be a sock puppet would you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Box Office Revenues
If you have evidence that the article I referenced is "false," I would love to see that evidence and learn more about these issues. In addition, if you have sources which show that studios actually receive the first two months of "profits," I would be very interested in seeing that evidence as well. Even if it were true that studios keep the first two months of "profits," it seems like you concede the point that box office revenues do not reflect the amount of revenues studios actually bring in (instead, it is some percentage of that). That in and of itself seems relevant to a discussion of Hollywood accounting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Box Office Revenues
That percentage is dependent upon the studio and the theater bidding for the movie. A contributor at joblo.com laid out two articles regarding that here - http://www.joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96049 (funnily enough the other one was the one you posted a link to). The first details a story with Sony asking 80% of ticket revenues for Godzilla when it first came out in theaters.
Also according to this - http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/movie-distribution1.htm - movie studios can lessen the impact of a movie's expenses by partnering with other studios.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Box Office Revenues
Lets take Return of the Jedi, just in its initial release, as a contrast: It cost $32.5 million to make. Its opening weekend was $23 million. 70% of production cost was made in opening weekend. It remained in the top two for weekend gross for the next 8 weeks (when a far higher percentage goes to the studio) making $102.24 Million Gross, more then 3 times production cost in Gross reciepts. IN that first week say 75% of reciepts went to the studio rather o account for the higher royalties and the studio got $76.68 Million. Lets keep the inflated $23.02 million for Prints and Logistical Expenses (it cost less in 1983). Advertising cost amount to 28% of gross box office revenue, so $28.63 million. So, with inflated numbers the studio still needs to recoup $7.47 Million in the remainder of its initial box office run. We have already written off a proportional 4 years worth of advertising and Logistical expenses, so they shouldn't be incurring more. Between week 9 and 21, an additional $36.669 Million was collected, giving the studio an additional $18.335 Million, and achieving profitability.
But they likely added more costs and more costs with re-releases that are keeping profitability down. Thats why we keep getting new versions of a "failed" movie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Box Office Revenues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Box Office Revenues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Box Office Revenues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fRAUD
You have to understand another point of interest.
the IRS is overwhelmed.
HOW to list, find every business concerned.
HOW to prove, a fly by night business that Disappeared, had any profit?
MOST STATES HAVE GIVEN UP ON FINDING THIESE, Flash companies.
You would think the IRS or even the states could/would keep track of all the companies. they Cant. There are thousands of QUICK/Flash companies popping up.ANd where do you think we CUT BACK FIRST??
There is a choice.
GET PEOPLE to help.(but thats illegal)
People are FREE, and if you get People to HELP the gov(state/federal) it gets us to be PART of the gov.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amazing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Amazing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Amazing!
A) Even they have survival instincts, and realize jumping into this one with their usual arguments will get them ripped to pieces.
Or
B) Even they are finding it insanely difficult to try and justify this sort of scam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Everyone else just gets paid to do their job and go home, and whether the movie's a hit or not doesn't make a lick of difference to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
they hide
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: they hide
had to fix your quote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where do you think the money goes to finance movies that lose money? To pay all those development fees for things that never even go in front of a camera?
If the studios are making out like bandits, great, buy some stock.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Box Office Numbers are an arbitrary number just used to create the illusion of a good film.
Its a marketing gimmick that someone forgot doesn't represent real money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yup. Big Boyz Screwz Little Guyz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The issue is this is necessary because otherwise the studio couldn't even break even. MGM Studios is relying on Skyfall and the Hobbit to get it out of a massive hole. Hell, it filed for bankruptcy and was completely restructured.
Not understanding how/why something works is not really a good basis for criticizing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ok, but
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Accounting bullshit
Despite the accounting demonstration described above; you are indirectly saying that the movie made millions and millions of dollars of profits. The rest is just accounting in order to make it legal to have tax breaks. It doesn't take a 100 watts to understand that. Shalom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Inversely Proportional
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't mess with the boss
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kevin Smith
If you're interested in learning even more about 90s movies, please check out my blog 90smovies.net.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
90s Movies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pretty sweet article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paranormal Activity it's another studios fraud...
While Monsters is a good movie and they surely didn't spend $800,000 to make it. The CGI alone in the movie costs way more than $800,000 from any CGI production company.
They didn't spend $50million to make Monsters but they surely spent $5 to $10million. Not the $800,000 they claim. They fake accounting too. It's a studios marketing operation, a smoke screen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corporate Entitlement
This is the sort of accounting that the average person would be jailed for... In fact every year there are many individuals jailed for this type of loose accounting.
Why shouldnt the movie companies be any different to the rest of the corporate jungle... Why shouldnt they get away with this, the rest of the corporate trash heap are doing it every day..
I know I probably have not added anything constructive to this post, but I have seen several of these occurances of loose accounting lately and it really doesnt surprise me any more.. But it should surprise me, it should annoy me, it should eat at me, and it should eat at you as well. Because if this is what we know, what else is going on that we dont know, what else is the corporate jungle getting away with.. Its seems obvious to me when you see the state of the worlds enconomies, mostly driven to this point due to one thing, profit, profit and more profit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
INOA BEAUTY,London salon,Hair & Beauty Treatments,Skin Care
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cinematography
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cinematography
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Language Arts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Language Arts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
free movies app
You can watch free movies using OneBox HD app on Android.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
movie
movie download new live channel geo news etc. I want to know why the budget for the average Hollywood movie keeps getting higher and higher, making movies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]