Slashdot Mirror
Hollywood Accounting — How Harry Potter Loses Money
An anonymous reader writes "Techdirt has the details on how it was possible for the last Harry Potter movie to lose $167 million while taking in nearly $1 billion in revenue. If you ever wanted to see 'Hollywood Accounting' in action, take a look. The article also notes two recent court decisions that may raise questions about Hollywood's ability to continue with these kinds of tricks. For example, the producers of 'Who Wants To Be A Millionaire' now have to pay $270 million for its attempt to get around paying a partner through similar tricks."
He probably got paid. The contract would have been for basic rate + royalties. He just didn't get royalties.
the guy who was actually in Darth Vader's suite never got paid
I thought movies used trailers, not hotel rooms.
and wouldn't Darth Vader be in Darth Vader's suite? Or are you talking about his bodyguard or something? (I would think it would be the actor's responsibility to pay his staff.)
And if you're talking about the actor (or maybe the guy in the suit), instead of his entourage, why would you talk about where he stayed? Why not mention him specifically?
Because it is still immoral and illegal. Two wrongs do not make a right, remember?
My best guess is you have no morals or ethics and live a bit like Lindsay Lohan "If I don't get caught or punished, then it isn't wrong".You are no better than the weasels in Hollywood.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
No, unless you have no ethics or morals.
In other words, it is still wrong and if you do it you are exactly like those weasels you claim to hate and whom you steal from.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
LOL! Did you just register under that username for that comment? Kudos, sir (or madam).
Free Martian Whores!
No, this trick won't work for tax purposes. The IRS isn't that dumb (and when they are dumb it is never in your favor). The reason they are able to get away with it from a tax perspective is they actually do pay taxes on it.
What they are doing is setting up a separate corporation for each movie. (...) The studio still has to pay taxes.
You will note that they still manage to claim an inordinate amount of expenses. If you look at the table provided in TFA: 53 millions to "finance" the production, over 200M for distribution, etc. But you are right: where they completely screw actors, directors and partners, they only manage to partially screw the taxpayer, because the IRS still has some teeth. But that could go away as well: hear those libertarian ideas about getting rid of the last bits of regulations the government still enforce.
The burden of proof falls on the person making the claim. One is not under any obligation to prove someone else's claim.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Why is fraud not their business?
Learn to love Alaska
I do so love it when people tell me I can't read when I disagree with them.
thieves think everyone is a thief. If you see any kind of DRM on anything, you can be pretty sure its creator is a thief, and a stupid one at that.
The majority of proprietary games released these days are DRM-encumbered, therefore (by your own logic) the majority of proprietary game producers are thieves, therefore you are calling a majority of said producers thieves, therefore you are a thief. Maybe if feepness had elucidated his chain of reasoning we could have avoided this whole nasty insulting of English proficiencies, etc.
I can see that you have a wholly adequate understanding of English, so lacking grounds for insulting your abilities in that area, I will call you rude. "Here, have some spaghetti; you're very rude."
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
I never stated anarchy. I described a government that resolves disputes and not much more. That is what libertarians desire, right? That you state you think it is anarchy is evidently what a libertarian thinks of a libertarian government.
Also, though not the ideal, I see no way in which a government chartered with dispute resolution as a main goal would be able to operate in a manner that didn't favor those with the most experience in the system. And those rule-aware people would be expensive and sought after, much like the way it works today, but with even more disputes run through the courts because the government would wipe its hands of primary enforcement of regulations and leave that to people who feel wronged to dispute it.
Oh, and if reason.com is an example of libertarianism, apparently all that means is bitching about stuff the current government is doing. I read through 5 articles to get a quick idea, and it seems to be nothing but opinion pieces on why things are broken or news that's reported elsewhere. But on "it should be this way" comments, there are none, just "it shouldn't be this way" comments. Not constructive, and not related to figuring what people think, just what they don't. I'm sure that with years of reading, I could figure it out, but why bother with an idea that's failed miserably every time it's been tried?
Learn to love Alaska