British Film?

[Phil Rhodes]

Good grief, I had no idea about that.

 

How the living bloody hell was Universal permitted to acquire a controlling stake in Working Title?

 

Do we not have a monopolies and mergers commission?

 

Phil

[Robert Hughes]

Nah, it was acquired by Sony a few years back. :ph34r:

[John Holland]

where the fu** have you been Phil ?? Universal bought Working Title years ago , as i said in previous post this country does not have a British financed film industry !!! Bit luck rest of the rest of country , we are run by the yanks , " Starbucks" land , poop isnt it .

[David Mullen ASC]

Bit luck rest of the rest of country , we are run by the yanks , " Starbucks" land , poop isnt it .

 

Well, some of those "Yank" movie companies are owned by Sony or Rupert Murdoch...

[John Holland]

Very true , not a attack on "yanks" per say . just want a bit of this country back feeling a bit crappy today .

[Mark Williams]

Da vinci code made more than 200 Million in its first week.

 

How much went to Tom Hanks?

 

I'm told that Sony's Da Vinci Code is now Tom Hanks' biggest movie at the box office, passing his previous record-setter Forrest Gump from Paramount. Reportedly, the actor's salary for the religious thriller was $18 million, plus a perk of profit participation. According to data banks, Hanks made $70 mil from Forrest Gump in gross and profit participation

 

How much went to Sony?

 

Since the release of The Da Vinci Code, things have also not gone well with Sony. And while one cannot link the bad fortunes of the corporate giant to the film, one cannot but take note that Sony has unexpectedly lost many times over any profit it might have gained from the film.

 

Since the film?s debut, the company has been plagued with a long litany of problems, infighting, delays and mistakes. In fact, Sony has just posted its worst quarterly loss in four years to the tune of $583 million.

 

In August of last year, Sony?s lithium ion batteries used in laptop computers mysteriously started catching fire. The company scrambled to control damage to its reputation and spent nearly $434 million on recalling and replacing the Sony batteries in 10 million laptops from Dell, Apple, Lenovo and other companies.

 

Sony has also been plagued by the marketing and developing of PlayStation 3, its new game console which it had hoped would become its new cash cow. Factory delays, high production costs and a bad marketing strategy have cut deeply into Sony?s market share which stood at 70 percent with the PlayStation 2. The new product now ranks third behind Nintendo?s Wii and Microsoft?s Xbox 360.

 

To remain competitive, Sony was forced to sell each new PlayStation 3 at a significant loss. As a result, Sony said the games unit lost $2 billion this year. To stay in the market, the firm may have to introduce further price cuts for the game console that will hurt profit margins yet more.

 

Even Sony?s recent record blockbuster "Spider-Man 3" is not helping significantly to adjust its bottom line. Media reports say production overruns, lavish spending and lagging schedules have made it the most expensive film in the history of Hollywood with cost estimates ranging from $270 million to $500 million1. Thus, higher box office receipts will not necessarily translate into higher profits.

 

CONCLUSIONS TO BE TAKEN

Looking back one year later, there is no doubt that things did not turn out as the film?s promoters expected. The unforgettable film of 2006 has been forgotten. The unstoppable Da Vinci Code juggernaut has lost its steam.

 

One cannot say that Sony?s attachment to blasphemy was the cause of its unexpected financial woes, mysterious exploding batteries and exasperating production delays. However one can say Sony?s post-film fortunes have certainly not gone according to plan.

 

BUT THE DA VINCI CODE WAS FINANCED BY UK INVESTORS SO THE BFC are RIGHT we are wrong

 

Doctors discover secret of Da Vinci Code tax break

Maurice Chittenden

THE Peak practice of Peter Allamby and Miles Davidson, doctors who run a surgery on the edge of the Derbyshire Dales, holds a secret. Unbeknown to their patients, the GPs are the new keepers of The Da Vinci Code.

They are among 175 Britons, including dentists, lawyers, bankers and at least 20 other doctors, who ?own? the the $200m (£106m) blockbuster film starring Tom Hanks and based on Dan Brown?s bestselling novel.

 

All belong to a syndicate put together by City financiers to buy the master print of the movie in a scheme designed by accountants to defer income tax payments for up to 15 years.

 

The group is almost as impenetrable as Opus Dei, the society allegedly dedicated to guarding the ancient secret revealed in the film.

 

?The film industry needs help, and a financial adviser suggested I join,? said Allamby, 47, who lives in a £500,000 stone cottage near Sheffield.

 

Related Links

The Da Vinci Code

Thrills, fun but no masterpiece

Da Vinci Code publicity train fires up

His group, Invicta Film Partnership No 23, has raised £125m, more than the cost of the movie, in the biggest ever sale-and-leaseback deal of its kind in Britain.

 

Sony, which made the film, will use about £15m of the money to promote the movie and to produce copies for the 9,000 cinemas showing it worldwide. The rest will be invested to pay leasing fees for the film it has just sold.

 

Such schemes raised £3 billion for the film industry last year, costing the taxman up to £1.2 billion in delayed tax payments.

 

Allamby refused to say how much he and Davidson, 43, had invested, but even though the movie opened last week to lukewarm reviews ? ?Opeless Dei? (The Sun) ? the safety of their money is as cast iron as a Knight Templar?s armour.

 

Some 2m people are expected to see the film in Britain this weekend alone, while in Italy it has broken box office records despite the Vatican?s call for a boycott. The film earned ?2m (£1.36m) there on its opening night, nearly double the previous best for the 1997 Holocaust drama Life Is Beautiful.

 

The jousting knight logo of Burberry, which once provided the trenchcoat worn by Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffany?s, is also wielding its sword to help The Da Vinci Code. Christopher Bailey, 35, the label?s design director, has put in money to the partnership but refused to comment.

 

Matt Lorenzo, 47, the Sky sports presenter, was not as shy. ?I have put in £50,000 and borrowed more from the bank,? he said. ? I am telling people I am now a Hollywood figure of some repute.?

 

If an investor puts in £50,000 and borrows another £200,000 to help fund a film?s post-production costs, the entire investment is put down as a tax loss. The Inland Revenue returns 40% or £100,000 to the investor who then has 15 years to pay it back as he receives annual leasing fees from the studio.

 

Gordon Brown, the chancellor, is so angry that a measure designed to attract filmmakers to Britain has been used as a tax deferral scheme that he has halted any more schemes unless filming started before April 1.

----------------------------------

Looks like the BRITISH PUBLIC HELPED FUND THIS FILM

 

FLEECED AGAIN A TAX LOOPHOLE

 

Why cant we be this clever?

[John Holland]

Whats this thing with you and the really dreadful film " The Da Vinci Code " ???

[Mark Williams]

Whats this thing with you and the really dreadful film " The Da Vinci Code " ???

err nothing John just the thread topic starter and I happened to like the da vinci code even if it was a little boring in parts. And we do have a financed film industry by the way no matter how inconsequential it may be.

[Matthew Buick]

feeling a bit crappy today .

 

I'm sorry to hear that, but it's really no reason to snap at everyone.

[Phil Rhodes]

Of course it's not a reason.

 

The reason to snap at Americans about their film industry is the violently anticompetitive practices in which they indulge.

 

It is of course partly our fault for putting up with it, but two wrongs don't, as they say.

 

It's just nice to know that both the problem and the impossibility of the appropriate regulatory solution can both be blamed on hyper-rich neo-cons. Never have I felt more roundly fu**ed over by the people who gas on about how much they want to help me. I revile and despise politicians.

 

Phil

[Matthew Buick]

Excuse me, Phil. But what have the people on this forum got to do with the American dominance of our film industry? What have these particular people done to deserve the loathing of you and John Holland.

 

My two cents pence.

[Mark Williams]

Well at least the Americans can put a film together much of the rubbish that comes out of the UK film industry is dross. Even a film like the fantastic 4 was amazingly well written. Brit films are often pretentious middle class rubbish sometimes though its arty eccentric drivel. OR worse still moralising on the bad old british past. Or perhaps worse in some way showing the great british yob who through obnoxious behaviour is a good guy really sort of a caveman with sensitivity. NO STEREO TYPES there then? Although to qualify as a sterotype doesnt it have to have a foundation in truth? Home goal?. Give me good old American popcorn anyday. They know how to have a good time.

 

As for the UK film industry. Beam me up scotty.

[Daniel Smith]

I think what may help would be bringing back that 'eevy levy' thing (Can't remember the spelling) which offers tax breaks to productions.

 

It may also help if the National Lottery funding didn't divide all those millions so they can make about 30 odd films that can afford to be made but can't afford to make their money back, if you know what I'm saying. Spend the lot on one or two films, and make some freakin' money back.

 

Thirdly, I don't have the business or film knowledge to attempt this, but I'd love to make some kind of a company that holds a huge public film fund. i.e. people log onto the web site, send in a small amount of money (via a secure function on the web site or via paypal) and hope they get a return on their investment. There would be ONE, project, that would be chosen by a series of experienced producers (people who know what will make money) and all the details of it will be publicly available.

 

I mean, people could invest £10, obviously their return would be crap, but atleast we'd get some films made. And an industry built.

Edited July 18, 2007 by Daniel Ashley-Smith

[John Sprung]

... (people who know what will make money) ...

There's the rub. Nobody knows for certain what will make money. Those who are relatively good at guessing are few and wealthy.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Daniel Smith]

There's the rub. Nobody knows for certain what will make money. Those who are relatively good at guessing are few and wealthy.

-- J.S.

Well obviously it would employ the more knowledgable of producers. How knowledgable a producer they employ would be dependant upon the budget that the company takes from the invested amount.

[Dominic Case]

There would be ONE, project, that would be chosen by a series of experienced producers (people who know what will make money)

No-one knows what ONE film will make money.

 

You might as well go to the casino and put all your money into one carefully chosen number at a single spin of the roulette wheel.

 

The ONLY way to make money as a film producer is to make lots of films, and hope that the one that makes money will make enough to cover your losses on the others.

 

It's called the studio system. I'm afraid it doesn't guarantee good films, (whatever you call 'good'). But it's the reason Hollywood is what it is. That is, rich.

 

By the way David, Rupert Murdoch, despite his origins, is officially an American Citizen. You have my sympathy, but you are welcome :( ;)

[Daniel Smith]

No-one knows what ONE film will make money.

 

You might as well go to the casino and put all your money into one carefully chosen number at a single spin of the roulette wheel.

 

The ONLY way to make money as a film producer is to make lots of films, and hope that the one that makes money will make enough to cover your losses on the others.

 

It's called the studio system. I'm afraid it doesn't guarantee good films, (whatever you call 'good'). But it's the reason Hollywood is what it is. That is, rich.

Yes of course, but it's the risk all film investors take. The only difference is, this kind of investment will be available to everyone across the world.

 

Lets say everyone chips in £20. If the movie is a total flop, the ABSOLUTE worst that can happen is that people are going to lose £20. But of course the chances of that happening are second to nil. If the movie fails, the average investor might end up losing £5.

 

Obviously people aren't going to make much money, but I think you would be suprised what people are willing to stick their money in in hope that they might get a return, however little. And if the grounds of the company are all for the benefit of "art" then I think a lot of people with a charitable heart might just throw something in.

 

Who knows, the government might offer some kind of a tax break to it. The whole thing could be some complete promotional function, like some of the film festivals. Merchandise etc.

 

It's better than nothing.

 

I mean, the national lottery throw their money down the drain. The difference between this company and the national lottery is that this company will give the money to people who actually know what to do with it.

Edited July 18, 2007 by Daniel Ashley-Smith

[Guest Tim Partridge]

"X-Men 1 and 2"

 

Where in X-Men 1 and 2, did they say it was taking place in Toronto or Canada?

 

The first movie introduces Wolverine in "Alberta" (though I'm sure it was filmed in Ontario), and the second movie has all that stuff in BC with the big dam (although maybe it was just filmed there- movie was unmemorable).

 

Before you cry that location doubling does not count- what about the Eurostar train chase from the first Mission Impossible movie? Filmed in Scotland as background plates that then had a CGI train added at ILM in the States! Even more bizarrely, the movie LIFEFORCE, set in London, made by London Cannon films, filmed at Elstree outside of London, yet there is not one genuine location shot of the city in the entire movie! It was shot on a backlot set of London with all the wider vistas created using the abandoned Tucktonia model village nowhere near London.

[John Sprung]

.... the abandoned Tucktonia model village nowhere near London.

Wow. What's that? I've never heard of it.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Guest Tim Partridge]

Wow. What's that? I've never heard of it.

-- J.S.

 

A friend of mine had a friend who worked on the LIFEFORCE model unit, and he had said they saved money by shooting the miniature London at a model village. imdb recently listed Tucktonia as the model village in their trivia section, so I'm safe to assume this was the location-

 

Tucktonia to the best of my knowledge was an old 1970s British theme park in Dorset, England. It had a model village of London. Coincidentally Tucktonia closed in 1985, just as LIFEFORCE was being released!

 

Most of the wide shots of London in LIFEFORCE are for the finale, showing fireballs flying over the city, with giant clouds of firey smoke, so for that it would make sense to scale. However, the first establishing shot of the city shows Big Ben and the houses of Parliament in front of a Haley's comet marked star sky. It is BLATANTLY a model, as it's not lit like the real building (and it doesn't even seem to match Alan Hume's main unit work). The model photography was handled by Doug Smith of John Dykstra's now defunct Apogee effects company (Dykstra was supervisor for the movie), and all of the model work had to be completed in the UK (even though Apogee were California based, and all of the optical work was to be done over there). Considering this was a genuinely big budget movie, nothing more than a postcard still image of the real London would have done the job for that one shot. Even worse are the later establishing shots of St Paul's Cathedral, although I am assuming it is suppose to be that building even though it is only refered to as "the cathedral" in the movie.

 

Amazingly, with it's exclusive Elstree backlot and miniature depiction of London, LIFEFORCE has much in common with the film it stole it's story and plot from: QUATERMASS AND THE PIT!

 

So yes, there you have it: London set film from a London based production company, FILMED at a London studio, and not one shot of the real city of London!

 

Boddington won't beat that.

[Guest]

"So yes, there you have it: London set film from a London based production company, FILMED at a London studio, and not one shot of the real city of London!

 

Boddington won't beat that."

 

Well the movie was still set in London and London played London.

 

If Lifeforce was made in Canada, Canada would stand in for NY.

 

R,