Reporter Claims TSA Agent Would Speed People Through Security For $10
Officials In The Philippines Want To Criminalize Downloading

Hollywood Accounting: Darth Vader Not Getting Paid, Because Return Of The Jedi Still Isn't Profitable

Movie Industry

from the it-might-draw-you-to-the-dark-side dept

Tue, Sep 13th 2011 09:44am -

Last year, we wrote about Hollywood accounting and how the big studios set up “corporations” for each movie, specifically designed to “lose money,” often by paying money back to the studio itself. Basically, the studio sets up this “company,” but then charges the company a huge “fee,” such that the company itself rarely, if ever, becomes profitable. Of course, hugely successful films usually still get past the threshold, but perhaps not all of them. Hugues Lamy points us to the news that the actor who played Darth Vader in Return of the Jedi is saying that Lucasfilm still isn’t paying residuals, claiming that the film is still not profitable:

?I get these occasional letters from Lucasfilm saying that we regret to inform you that as Return of the Jedi has never gone into profit, we?ve got nothing to send you. Now here we?re talking about one of the biggest releases of all time,? said Prowse. ?I don?t want to look like I?m bitching about it,? he said, ?but on the other hand, if there?s a pot of gold somewhere that I ought to be having a share of, I would like to see it.?

If you adjust for inflation, Jedi is the 15th highest grossing films of all time. In other words, the movie has made a ton of money. But somehow, amazingly, Lucasfilm is still able to claim that it lost money. And you wonder where the MPAA got its math skills.

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: lucasfilm

182 CommentsLeave a Comment
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Hollywood Accounting: Darth Vader Not Getting Paid, Because Return Of The Jedi Still Isn't Profitable”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
182 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Well Marcus, if you took the time to learn a few things about how movies work, you might understand it.

See, financing a movie and getting things going something is done with “points” rather than actual cash up front. Those points are percentages of the movie income. There are a couple of different pools (often many). The easiest for someone like you to understand is “points before expenses” and “points after expenses”. It is important to understand that the points before go against the bottom line.

So the easiest explanation is that there are too many participants or too big of a percentage given away as “points before”. The people who are in the “points after” position may never see any money as a result.

How does this happen? Well, it can often be found in sub-companies that are used for different tasks. ILM (Industrial Light and Magic) may have done the work on the movie at a lower rate, and then taken “points” for a longer term payout. So it goes, each contract and each agreement chipping away at the bottom line.

If there are too many points taken, you can end up in a situation where there is never a profit.

I hope that helps you to understand the basics.

Jose_X (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 He was hiding something

Lucas disconnected Vader from the force for unauthorized usage.

The old man was also caught sharing with a rebel.

I only mention this because it triggered one of the point clauses in the contract between Vader and Lucas:

“Sixteen points ($3 billion USD) will be forfeited to the empire to compensate for any disturbance occurring over 3 miles from the initial source.”

Given how Lucas scripted all of Vader’s scenes, I’m surprise he didn’t see that one coming!!!

Cowardly Anon says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Basics sure. It still doesn’t help me understand how a movie that has been released twice, with a third release on the way, that has record video sales, and is apart of a franchise that could only be described as a magic golden cow of cash still isn’t making money.

I’m willing to bet money that dear Mr. Lucas has made money off that film.

You can come in here with your trolling attitude and just enough facts to appear like you know what you’re talking about, but in the end you still look like an ass with an internet connection. Congrats.

Derek Kerton (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Nobody here has a problem with the fact that the actor doesn’t get paid for work done 30 years ago. Masnick isn’t actually saying Prouse deserves money. The issues are:

– the hypocrisy of the studio to say they just represent the actors and writers, etc, but don’t.

– the standard bad math skills and questionable accounting tactics of the studios.

– the fact that the studios then go to DC with the same bad math and accounting, and try to tell us they don’t make money because of piracy.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

It isn’t shifty accounting. It’s perfectly legal accounting, it’s contract law, and it’s the way things work.

Now, this is a perfect example of why Mike making fun of the MPAA “math” is such a joke, because much of the income of movie is trickled down to other place, from creators to actors and the like. The money doesn’t just disappear, it is still circulating in the economy.

Oh, wait, in this case, you guys want to act like the money just disappeared. Right, got it.

Just think of the guy getting the “not profitable” mail as the same as someone trying to sell their music. They aren’t getting paid because piracy made it “unprofitable”. Same for the manufacture, the shipping company, and the retailers. Oh wait, in Techdirt land, when it comes to piracy, all bets are off. There is no harm.

Got it.

The only shifty thing here is how you guys look at stuff.

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

“Just think of the guy getting the “not profitable” mail as the same as someone trying to sell their music. They aren’t getting paid because piracy made it “unprofitable”. Same for the manufacture, the shipping company, and the retailers. Oh wait, in Techdirt land, when it comes to piracy, all bets are off. There is no harm.”

I have read some silly things in my time, but this is one of the flatout mind-numbingly stupid comparisons to two completely different sets of arguments I’ve ever read. My brain actually shit itself as I read it. Do you know how much that hurts? To have your brain shit itself?

I actually spent the last several minutes jamming my mechanical pencil into my testicles, just to force myself to focus on the pain instead of the asswagon nonsense that you just wrote out.

1. Nobody is claiming the money disappeared. It’s being spent. By LucasFilm execs that shouldn’t have the money, were it not for nonsense accounting techniques that would give Enron a hardon.

2. Musicians don’t work under contract for listeners. They should figure out a way to, actually, but they don’t. They aren’t promised money only to be told that money doesn’t exist because of *bang* *boom* *pow!* Batman accounting nonsense.

3. PIRACY DIDN’T MAKE SELLING MUSIC UNPROFITABLE! Musicians are making money. Labels are struggling to. Those that actually are “selling their music” as opposed to trying to have someone else sell it for them are doing just fine.

Besides all this, the two issues are different, mostly because the RIAA actually DID say the money disappeared while we DIDN’T, and yet you try to apply that accusation to us?

I actually laughed my way through your comment, because I picture you masturbating through your tears while typing with only one hand, a picture of the Techdirt logo all over your room as the sense of rejection seeps in.

Techdirt: the place you claim to hate, yet can’t stop visiting and discussing. It might be time to find God, or at least a good psychiatrist….

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

So, what’s your argument? That one of the most successful films in history couldn’t even make a profit in the pre-Internet era and that’s normal, or that it’s OK for Dave Prowse not to get paid because someone else has the money?

“They aren’t getting paid because piracy made it “unprofitable”.”

Tell me, exactly how much money was lost from the 1983 cinema release of this film due to piracy, especially Internet piracy? In the decade before the web was invented, what part of your moronic statement even applies?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

It isn’t shifty accounting. It’s perfectly legal accounting, it’s contract law, and it’s the way things work.

They used to say similar things about slavery in the Southern US. “It isn’t wrong. It’s perfectly legal, it’s property law, and it’s the way things work.”

Just because something’s legal, that doesn’t mean there’s nothing wrong with it.

Marcus Carab (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

For the guy who claims to have all this knowledge about the industry, you certainly are naive about it. And kind of lacking in real knowledge too.

There is no clearly drawn line about what constitutes legal accounting in this case – especially since these lawsuits can come before juries as well as judges. The former, like the readers here, tend to balk at the idea that a multi-(m/b)illion-dollar entertainment franchise can fail to turn a profit. So do some of the latter.

You say it’s all clear and legal, but it’s not that simple. When you dig into the details of the accounting, it all seems rather convenient- the way expenses are always clocking in at juuuust enough to keep them from having to pay out any points off the net, and always including lots of elastic numbers that are hard to justify. That’s suspicious to say the least, especially when you are looking at something like Star Wars that practically sells itself.

Now, I can tell that you think contracts are a game of “hahaha, I gotcha!” – and admittedly sometimes they can be. But the world is not entirely like the elementary school playground where you learned your social skills. If two parties have entered into a seemingly equitable contract in good faith, then one party uses questionable (even if not outright illegal) methods to twist that contract massively in their favour, it is quite possible that a jury or judge will award damages. They can, they have, and they will again – more and more often as these topics come further into the light.

I can really only take so much condescension from someone as plainly clueless as you.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Care to explain why the industry is putting propaganda out using a microphone boom mic operator and other staff saying they get “residuals” when they don’t really?

Is that a real lie then, you just admitted that films don’t pay others but they do like to claim that they do, what do you call that?

I call it total BS.

So much for the line “Workers receive residuals that pay for their retirement” LoL

Marcus Carab (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

I am sorry, but your rant is pretty hard to examine without examples.

Oh, those examples really should include the contracts and stuff.

Naturally you say this here, but completely ignore my comment above where I link to examples that in fact do include extensive documented details.

You just don’t know when to admit defeat, do you?

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

So the easiest explanation is that there are too many participants or too big of a percentage given away as “points before”. The people who are in the “points after” position may never see any money as a result.

In other words it is exactly the same kind of scheme as the sub-prime mortgage lending scam. I thought it was – but now you have confirmed it for me.
Thanks.

qabal (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Thanks for making that clear, AC: at 10:1 ROI (not counting non-box office profits), you can only pay back the people who took the BIG risks. I think we can all remember how risky this movie was to produce and how unlikely the audience was to embrace it.

But you’re absolutely right, we just don’t understand equitable accounting. Besides all those actors were just ‘work for hire’… they don’t deserve any of the benefits of original contribution. Like investors do.

The question I have is: Does this system work like the RIAA? If we asked Harrison Ford, would he say that he’s never seen a residual check? Or is it just the Prowse’s of the world who have neither clout, nor a legal staff, who catch the shaft?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

” I think we can all remember how risky this movie was to produce and how unlikely the audience was to embrace it.”

Erm, I hope you’re being sarcastic? The original Star Wars maybe, but the 3rd part of the most successful trilogy of all time at that point? The movie they shot under the name of Blue Harvest and pre-advertised as Revenge Of The Jedi to throw off bootleg merchandisers? Hardly.

“Besides all those actors were just ‘work for hire’… they don’t deserve any of the benefits of original contribution. Like investors do.”

If you honestly think that, you’re probably turning more people to the “dark side” than otherwise. Take a few minutes to try and work out why that might be, and then if it’s still a struggle think of how many people look at the work of Prowse or Baker vs. the guy who dropped a highly profitable bank note.

Spaceboy (profile) says:

Re: Re:

STFU. We know you are George Lucas posting as an AC. Please explain how ROTJ hasn’t made a profit.

ROTJ had a production budget of $32,500,000.00. Domestic Lifetime gross is $309,306,177.00.

Let’s see how my math skills are. Subtract production budget from lifetime gross and we are left with $276,806,177. Then we add the foreign gross which is $165,800,000 and we have a grand total of $442,606,177. That’s almost half a BILLION dollars. That’s only from the box office.

So Mr Anonymous Coward, care to elaborate?

What’s that? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWaLxFIVX1s

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Oh come on, be reasonable!

You can’t expect a movie like RoTJ to actually turn a profit with a measly half-billion dollars in net revenue, can you?

The production budget only covers the amount to *make* the film, not how much is spent to get the film to theaters, and to get suckers^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcustomers into the seats.

You obviously have no idea how much it costs to ship film reels to the theatres – that must be in the tens of millions of dollars right there!

Or how about promotional posters? You can’t just take posters down to your local Kinko’s to print willy-nilly, you have to clear the rights first – and the rights to a franshise like Star Wars run into the hundreds of millions. You can’t expect Lucas to be able to just *give himself permission* for something important like that, he’d be robbing himself. What are you, some kind of filthy pirate?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

…and that’s only domestic, and not counting video sales, where it’s been released at least 6-7 times and bought multiple times by the same damn people. Also, licensing and merch, which Lucas probably pocketed directly to fund his stupid prequels.

But, Hollywood’s accountants fudge the numbers to stop an actor getting paid, so that’s all OK with Mr. Corporate Bootlicker over there.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

You really think this is an isolated example? Try using Google for a couple of minutes, and you’ll see it’s not an isolated incident, even though the studios do try to keep a lid on this being public knowledge (start with Forrest Gump).

The main commentary here is simply how blatant it is – one of the most successful movies of all time and it’s still not profitable?

“Mike must really hate all the artists that make their living in Hollywood.”

Like Dave Prowse? Or does he not count because he’s an Englishman?

RD says:

No Movie Has Ever Made a Profit (except maybe 14 of them)

So, what is basically being said here is, when it comes to paying royalties, virtually NO MOVIE HAS EVER MADE A PROFIT!

Except maybe (and only a maybe) the 14 above Jedi. If Jedi, at 15th all time grossing, cant make a profit, then by extension nothing below it ever has either.

And the trolls wonder why we slag Big Copyright and Hollywood so much, when they exhibit blatantly ridiculous outright thievery like this.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: No Movie Has Ever Made a Profit (except maybe 14 of them)

Not exactly, because probably not every movie wrote the contracts the same way, i.e. they weren’t as clever in skimming the profit, so there might actually be hundreds or thousands of movies where decent residuals were actually paid, as well as thousands of others where they weren’t.

AJ says:

Soooo, I guess this tosses the “piracy is killing the artists” argument. If only a possible 14 or so movies pay the artists after the initial production, I can’t see how it’s “hurting” them at all.

When the artists figure out that the pirates are the fans and the middle men are the pirates, your going to see a disturbance in the force….

Killer_Tofu (profile) says:

Copyright encouraging content creation?

Is this what the big labels and studios mean by copyright encourages innovation and content creation? They guarantee that almost no musicians or actors ever get royalties, so then those artists are encouraged to go out and make more content so that they can have an income.

Sorry RIAA and MPAA, but that’s fucked up.

Jason says:

Business Model

What I see here is the movie studios need to change their business model. With movies never making a profit they should charge individuals extra money while at the theater. Oh and another idea. Televisions with ATM/Credit card slots so they can charge us to watch the trailers for the movies. Maybe then they will make some cash. And with luck, not go bankrupt. After all, without making profit their is no motivation to continue remaking all the movies of old.

Anonymous Coward says:

Old news, but still sucks. Back in the mid 90s when Babylon 5 was in production, J. Michael Straczynski (the creator of the show) talked on Usenet all the time about Hollywood accounting. Other than a salary, he knew he’d never get a cut of profits (even though profits were in his contract) because the system is setup so that movies and TV shows don’t show a profit.

Rikuo (profile) says:

Okay, let’s say Hollywood is correct when they say that no movie has ever made a profit. That means they sink millions into a movie and get no return.
So…how come when the next movie rolls around, there’s somehow millions set aside for the budget. If your company is reporting that it never makes a profit, where does it get the money from for the next project? So then, why aren’t these companies being investigated for fraud?

out_of_the_blue says:

The tear-jerking story of a millionaire cheated by a billionaire.

No doubt Prowse /already/ got for a few hundred hours of acting more than most people will earn in a lifetime of labor, so my sympathy is low.

There’s just WAY too much money in mass entertainment, and little of it is deserved as produces no lasting value. We need an over-arching limit on incomes, besides an end to accounting tricks.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: The tear-jerking story of a millionaire cheated by a billionaire.

It’s not about sympathy for him. It’s about the fact that the studios are provably thieves, cheats, and liars and so anything they say about the importance of strict copyright laws should be completely disregarded due to their untrustworthiness.

Franklin G Ryzzo (profile) says:

Re: Re: The tear-jerking story of a millionaire cheated by a billionaire.

“It’s not about sympathy for him. It’s about the fact that the studios are DEFINITELY thieves, cheats, and liars and so anything they say about the importance of strict copyright laws should be completely disregarded due to their untrustworthiness.”

fixed it for you 🙂

blaktron (profile) says:

Re: The tear-jerking story of a millionaire cheated by a billionaire.

Millionaire: The guy who pays your salary or rents you your home.
Billionaire: The guy who puts him out of business, fires you and forecloses your home.

Ya, I think I know where the sympathy would lie, if this were about sympathy at all. Rather its about economics and how something perfectly legal can still be morally wrong.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: The tear-jerking story of a millionaire cheated by a billionaire.

Dave Prowse is hardly a millionaire.
He’s appearing at comic and sci-fi conventions to make money.
He can’t work at his profession (stunt man/actor) due to severe arthritis and weakness due to radiation therapy for prostate cancer.
Sound like a millionaire to you?

ArkieGuy (profile) says:

Net VS Gross

The net profits (those generated via the interNet using “approved” means) are smaller than the gross profits (those earned by the studio). Since the actors are paid on net profits, they will never make residuals. 😉

But seriously, it’s easy for a studio to increase it’s cost by greasing the hands of MPAA (and it’s past employees that later go on to become judges dealing with copyright cases), lobbyists and politicians. I mean really, which is “better” for the industry, paying the actors or making sure the status quo is maintained?

MattP says:

Ah, the good ole Gross Profit vs. Net Profit accounting.

FTA:

“Gross profit is what you get if you are a big enough actor or producer to demand this. You get a percentage of profit based on the gross of the film ? how much it makes before any costs. Therefore, you are guaranteed to get paid since the studio can?t hide anything. Very few people can demand gross points. But if you have them and your film hits big, you make millions. In fact, this can be so profitable you will sometimes see big stars forgo any salary at all except union minimum just to get these points.

Unfortunately, Mr. Prowse relates what is almost universally the case with a net profit clause. Studios almost never pay on this clause, as they claim nearly any and every expense possible to keep the film from showing any actual profit. Very few films have ever shown a net profit on the books.

How do they do this? Well first, imagine that George Lucas decided to go to New York tomorrow to talk about showing Return of the Jedi in 3D. And he stayed at the Ritz Carlton, ordered sushi at 3 a.m. from room service and used the hotel phone to call Bahrain to make prank calls.

Well, 26 years after the release of the film, the accountants at Lucasfilm are going to charge $86,000 to the costs of Return of the Jedi. I am NOT joking. This is what they do. If George Lucas utters the words Star Wars and he?s spending money, they?re putting it on the red line for one of those films.

On the flipside, Mr. Prowse would be wise to use the FORCE, aka a lawyer, to get Lucasfilm to cough up. You see, as you can tell by the above, the accounting is utter bullshit. And on a film like Return of the Jedi, Lucasfilm would be extremely reluctant to open its books in open court. Extremely reluctant because of how incredibly embarrassed studios have been in the past when they have made the mistake of doing this. Plus, the ensuing publicity would be embarrassing to Lucasfilm. Can you imagine the hedlines if Darth Vader sued George Lucas?

In short, if you have net participation on a film that has grossed hundreds of millions, you may get some dough, but you?ll have to sue to get it.”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

On the flipside, Mr. Prowse would be wise to use the FORCE, aka a lawyer, to get Lucasfilm to cough up. You see, as you can tell by the above, the accounting is utter bullshit. And on a film like Return of the Jedi, Lucasfilm would be extremely reluctant to open its books in open court. Extremely reluctant because of how incredibly embarrassed studios have been in the past when they have made the mistake of doing this. Plus, the ensuing publicity would be embarrassing to Lucasfilm. Can you imagine the hedlines if Darth Vader sued George Lucas?

I would pay to see the documentary film of exactly that.

Anonymous Coward says:

I got a simple thing to say to all of you.

WHY THE FUCK DO ANY OF YOU GIVE A DIME TO MAFIAA ???

I have not payed them for anything in over 5 years now and I never will.I wait the extra week or two and then I buy my stuff used.And I do not go to a theater or support Netflix,Amazon,ITUNES,etc.

BUY USED !!! STOP FEEDING PIGS !!!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Used is still helping them.

Stop buying or pirate but do not in any circumstances PAY! anything for any product or SERVICE(this includes radio, Netflix and TV I’m afraid) that they can monetize.

You have other options, open options that you can make use of it.

The license is everything today if it is not open you are helping them become bolder.

akp says:

AC

“Has any actor in this situation ever tried a legal action to pierce the corporate veil and get at the studio’s profits when the shell corporation is bankrupt?”

As I understand it, this is what Peter Jackson did when New Line attempted to cheat him out of his share of the Lord of the Rings profits (using the same math).

As I also understand it, he won.

Steve says:

They have been screwing Mr. Prowse from day one. What a joke! Just like our bs “government”…”we don’t have any money, we don’t have any money”….but then you look at lucasfilm’s lot, land and facilities. I realize there is crazy overhead but they also made beyond crazy money! Unreal how people can actually believe they can send a letter to him like that…it’s not like he’s living under a rock and thinking, oh well, maybe next month. episodes 1-3 sucked by the way George!

Nicholas Alexander (profile) says:

Secrets and Lies

Thank you for this information. Creative accounting at its very worst – contracting in bad faith – it is commercial theft of contractual obligation.

Why can’t Mr Vader, err Prowse sue them for breach of faith? It not seem so much an issue of copyright, but it is a breach of the intent of the contract and Lucasfilm should be embarrassed into paying their dues.

It is not dissimilar to the bad faith exhibited by bankers who pay themselves massive bonuses after tax payer bailouts in the UK as the cost of living sky rockets and wages are stagnant.

Star Wars would have been forgettable without David Prowse.

Mark says:

If it’s not profitable anymore, then maybe they should put it in the public domain, and stop spending money on it!

Really… if it’s not making them any money, what do they have to lose? And meanwhile, many people who might not have otherwise seen it would be legally able to!

Oh… that’s right… it’s not about money. It’s about control.

But if that’s the case, why are they being stingy about paying their actors? I mean, if they want their control so badly, why should the actors not get paid because of it? More generally, what gives them the idea that they should be able to have anything that they want without having to pay fairly for it? I’m pretty sure that’s not all that dissimilar an attitude from people who pirate their movies.

hmm (profile) says:

police time!

Breaking News…..

George Lucas arrested, previous owner of the skywalker ranch found buried near the outhouse!

We wondered how he afforded that place, said a neighbour, “after all, NONE of his films showed any sort of profits at all, and if you ask me they should be checking how Lucasarts gets the money to create its games, I think they’re killing real people and pixellating them!”

In further news, homeless victims found in Skywalker ranch basement covered in glue with jarjar ears taped to their heads…..”It’s CGI, honest!” said a burbling PA as she was hauled away for fraud.

MondoGordo (profile) says:

RoTJ still in the hole ... makes sense.

Not trolling … but if …

George Lucas got 15% of gross
Mark Hamill got 5% of gross
Carrie Fischer got 5% of gross
Harrison Ford got 5% of gross
Jim Henson got 5% of gross
The studio got 20% of gross
The production company got 15% of gross
The SFX company got 10% of gross
ILM got 10% of gross
Distributors got 10% of gross
(that’s 100% btw)
and the film cost 132 million to make … then it will NEVER make a profit … and will always be 132M$ in the hole … that is simple math … if you spend everything you earn before the bills get paid, then you’ll always be in the hole.

Which is a great way for unscrupulous a-holes to screw over the little guy. Not that i want to give them any more ideas …. 🙁

mojo says:

I wonder if the studios report to their shareholders that they have never made a profit?

Very unlikely, of course.

FOX to shareholders: “This quarter our movies made billions! The stock is soaring!”

FOX to actors: “This quarter we didn’t make any money, sorry we can’t pay you.”

Wouldn’t that be an immediate example of two very different accounting ledgers?

David says:

Re:

So…how come when the next movie rolls around, there’s somehow millions set aside for the budget.

The budget is upfront costs. Of course they detract from the profits.

If your company is reporting that it never makes a profit, where does it get the money from for the next project?

As the previous projects moved towards the black zero (never reaching it, of course), the investment for the next movie resurfaces.

The ultimate source, of course, are the revenues from “Steamboat Willy.” Which is why it must never run out of copyright, or Hollywood will fall.

That other guy (profile) says:

So this question is not asked again, and people begin to understand the accounting a bit, a studio will form sub companies to perform various tasks in the making of the movie and you, the actor or whomever you are, are hired by the sub company (the bottom of the food chain). Your percent of the profits comes from a shell company that pays by design all the money to upstream companies. The IRS gets paid by the parent company, the top of the food chain, you get paid by the shell company, the bottom, so your 5% of the net profits will almost always be equal to $0 while the IRS gets paid by the parent all the money they are entitled. Get 5% of the gross and you have a chance or 5% of the money paid to the parent. Until that time, get your money upfront, that’s all you’re ever going to see – but you already know that.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Reporter Claims TSA Agent Would Speed People Through Security For $10
Officials In The Philippines Want To Criminalize Downloading
Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...