Spielberg's "Disclosure Day" pre-release Speculation

FatPhil said:
That's basically me and LotR. 1/3 of the way, but I did go back for a second attempt, and got 1/6 of the way. 1/3+1/6 = 1/2, so we're about equal.
Click to expand...
I liked the cleverness of the whole Hobbit thing, but got bored when it got all dramatic and went into sci-fi-cum-medieval conflict.

I'm from another era altogether. I read all I could find from Asimov, Heinlein, Bradbury etc in my early teens. When I was a little younger it was the sea stories that enthralled me, cannon fire on a pitching deck, amputated limbs and all. Now I'm an old lady, I still enjoy crime stories, but not the ones with a lot of suspense - bad for my blood pressure!
 
Z.W. Wolf said:
That's what I've been arguing for a long time. There are accounting tricks. The movie loses money, but obviously someone is making money. A conglomerate is paying itself. But moving money to different parts of itself. And the expenses are inflated.
Click to expand...
This is known as "Hollywood Accounting", a well established collection of methods for tax and profit sharing avoidance.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-l2oFKZNak

Hollywood also plays with state governments, in the same manner as other industries chasing tax incentives and grants.

Article:
Mackinac Center for Public Policy

Stop the Hollywood handouts

Film production incentives always flop

For years, movie producers have played states against each other and reaped billions in taxpayer money. The smart strategy for state lawmakers is to stop playing.

... a clear-eyed assessment demonstrates that states lose. Georgia auditors found that the tax revenue the state receives from the subsidized film industry amounts to less than a third of what it spends on the subsidies—even when counting the tax revenue from the people who sell to the people who sell to film producers. New York auditors found similar losses in their state.

This grant-seeking business model extends across national boundaries:

Article:

Australian taxpayers footed half the bill for Hollywood dud Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga

A huge chunk of the budget for Chris Hemsworth's latest box office flop was picked up by Australian taxpayers, it can be revealed.

Precisely how much public money went towards the latest instalment in the Mad Max franchise is unclear, because the figures are kept secret by Screen New South Wales and Screen Australia.

But experts put the bill in the vicinity of at least $183 million – all for the privilege of having the George Miller-directed action film shot on Australian soil.

"It's incredibly expensive and what value the Australian public get for that cost is questionable," Professor Kevin Sanson, head of the School of Communication at Queensland University of Technology, told news.com.au.

It's easy to joke "Hollywood accounting is more creative than its blockbuster storylines"! In actuality, it is a lazy "If you can get away with it, then just keep doing it" business model. The same rinse-and-repeat approach that is responsible for the endless production of risk-averse sequels and reboots.
 
A big part of Hollywood accounting isn't even taxes (those are pretty easy for a corporation to dodge anyway) but money owed to talent based on earnings of the project and not the company, and when you're only looking at the project it's easier to hide the fact that some of these expenses are not actually on the project alone.

An old trick from the golden age studios was that if one show needed a train every show used the train. This is smart because getting a train for a few days of filming is expensive and you can spread that cost to several projects... But when it comes time to write checks you don't account it that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Trending content

Back
Top