I'm reading the biography of Francis Ford Apocalypse, and his movie, "Peggy Sue got married", was apparently a huge success. But, according to Wiki, it cost $18 million to make and had a domestic gross of only $41 million. If the theatres took half, and the distributor took half of the remaining half - ie, a quarter of the gross - that would leave only $10 million for the producer and investor. IOW, that would have been a big loss.
By the same token, "Apocalypse Now" cost $31 million to make, but apparently made a worldwide gross of $150 million. After splitting the take between the theatres and the distributors, and, considering bank interest, there wouldn't have been much left. So, again, why is it considered a success????
I'm baffled - is there an accountant who can explain this to me?
Theaters aren't taking half of the box office. That's why popcorn costs so much.
Also, remember that marketing costs a ton AND not unimportant, studios have a way of cooking the books and fudging numbers to make it appear to cost more than it did (ie, owning production trucks but charging themselves more than the real value) so the published "cost" is nowhere near what the reality is.
That's why most smart above-the-line people (those who get big paychecks) get those those big deals instead of opting for back-end money. Nobody trusts studio accounting. A true economic success can (and has) be made to look like a failure which would drive down back-end payouts no matter what percentage is negotiated.
You might try a book like this: http://www.amazon.com/Ways-Finance-Your-Feature-Film/dp/0809326930/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1332260296&sr=8-12 (there are oodles of others to choose from)
Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com
Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com
