The thrust of my point was that the movie industry would never have sustained itself for the time that it has if it wasn't profitable for pretty much everyone involved in the production. Whether they declare the profit and pay taxes on it or just stick it all in a mattress in the spare room and call it "miscellaneous promotion expenses", it's there.
Yeah, that one's really hard to defend. I think it's made less money than my parents' vacation movies. I've watched it too though, in fact, I can see the video sitting on my bookshelf (but I'm not planning on buying the DVD (http://us.imdb.com/DVD?0112760)).
You know I don't think I've ever seen a mystical overhead fly by a production offices. Most actors get a contract buyout rather than a percentage (the main exception being the films that are a "labor of love" for the actor/director/writer). Promotion costs are taken straight off the top with the rest of the above-the-line costs. Things run over budget when shooting takes longer than expected but it's all documented pretty thoroughly in your daily production report (DPR).
Also, once a movie is in the can, all of the post production is complete and the first wide release is over, the expenses are pretty much capped. If you've recouped your budget at that point, it's all gravy after that... if not, well, just give it time.
With the exception of public domain, there's no statue of limitations on profit and my key phrase was that they eventually make money.
I've got ten bucks that says the visible light coronograph beats out interferometry. VLC sounds like an advanced version of the pinhole box (http://www.exploratorium.edu/eclipse/how.html) we used to look at the solar eclipse in elementary school and that's so crazy it just might work.
Re:Yay overrated actors
on
New Mad Max Film
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I've worked in production offices for a few years and, while actors are getting some serious perks for "playing pretend", they also take the brunt of the blame if the movie goes over budget, hits delays or ultimately crashes and burns. I'm not saying that it's fair compensation but if I work on a string of movies that tank I still have a fairly easy time finding work on another one, not so with the face on the screen.
Waterworld made money, over $70 million in its first domestic box office run, before overseas export, video release and licensing. It's a seldom stated film industry secret but... they all eventually make money.
There's an environmental group in Canada (http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=356) that's worked out a twist on "grey goo" by saying that the bigger threat will be nanotech development on existing bacteria to perform the function of machines, not the other way around. Taking advantage of bacteria's self-replication processes.
Slashdot Mirror
The thrust of my point was that the movie industry would never have sustained itself for the time that it has if it wasn't profitable for pretty much everyone involved in the production. Whether they declare the profit and pay taxes on it or just stick it all in a mattress in the spare room and call it "miscellaneous promotion expenses", it's there.
Yeah, that one's really hard to defend. I think it's made less money than my parents' vacation movies. I've watched it too though, in fact, I can see the video sitting on my bookshelf (but I'm not planning on buying the DVD (http://us.imdb.com/DVD?0112760)).
I guess the studio got a tax write-off that year.
Actually, I spent the whole movie going "But he looks nothing like Donald Sutherland! It's just wrong!"
It'll hit a profit eventually (although that one may take years).
http://us.imdb.com/Business?0114898
You know I don't think I've ever seen a mystical overhead fly by a production offices. Most actors get a contract buyout rather than a percentage (the main exception being the films that are a "labor of love" for the actor/director/writer). Promotion costs are taken straight off the top with the rest of the above-the-line costs. Things run over budget when shooting takes longer than expected but it's all documented pretty thoroughly in your daily production report (DPR).
Also, once a movie is in the can, all of the post production is complete and the first wide release is over, the expenses are pretty much capped. If you've recouped your budget at that point, it's all gravy after that... if not, well, just give it time.
With the exception of public domain, there's no statue of limitations on profit and my key phrase was that they eventually make money.
I used the simple math on this one
$255.2 million (wordwide) - $175 million (budget) = $80.2 million
http://us.imdb.com/Business?0114898
I've got ten bucks that says the visible light coronograph beats out interferometry. VLC sounds like an advanced version of the pinhole box (http://www.exploratorium.edu/eclipse/how.html) we used to look at the solar eclipse in elementary school and that's so crazy it just might work.
I've worked in production offices for a few years and, while actors are getting some serious perks for "playing pretend", they also take the brunt of the blame if the movie goes over budget, hits delays or ultimately crashes and burns. I'm not saying that it's fair compensation but if I work on a string of movies that tank I still have a fairly easy time finding work on another one, not so with the face on the screen.
Waterworld made money, over $70 million in its first domestic box office run, before overseas export, video release and licensing. It's a seldom stated film industry secret but... they all eventually make money.
There's an environmental group in Canada (http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=356) that's worked out a twist on "grey goo" by saying that the bigger threat will be nanotech development on existing bacteria to perform the function of machines, not the other way around. Taking advantage of bacteria's self-replication processes.