Another Weekend, Another Tale of Woe for Tentpoles.....

[Rakesh Malik]

I'm looking forward to those. I really liked that trilogy, and I was both happy and sad when I learned about it being made into a film, because I knew the studios would pander to the religious folks instead of being authentic to the story. I liked the film, but I wasn't surprised that the sequels didn't happen. Disappointed, but not surprised. The religious angle was part of why I wasn't surprised; I knew the religious cults would complain, and even though their complaints violate their own purported ethical standards, they have a lot of influence, and I knew from the outset that the studio would try to make nice with them, most likely ruining the story.

 

IMO the studio didn't ruin the story nearly as much as I'd expected, but I still wish we'd been able to get some more of it.

[Landon D. Parks]

 

 

Technically....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Dust

 

More Hobbit to LOTR.

 

I quote from that Wikipedia article:

 

"and will address the lack of positive portrayals of religion in the His Dark Materials books"

 

So, it looks like they got to him, too... Why can't people just put out what they want to put out without everyone else getting butt-hurt about it. Although, I would like to see how he weaves that story line - so it might not be all bad. Reminds me of all the fury over the Harry Potter series... It's a fiction book people! Ugh.

[Edward Lawrence Conley III]

 

Yeah Landon is quite correct, there is no such thing as, "flop insurance." If there was, Disney would of broken the insurance company long ago. :)

 

R,

 

Of course there's no real

"flop Insurance" but the financing deals are so deep there are law firms that work solely in this area to protect the money, and yes there is insurance for the deal.

 

Of course things can go bad, Relativity is an example but in general most finance deals put together to fund a movie have been worked out by lawyers that specialize in film finance.

[Guest]

To protect the money? How?

 

If this were the case Hollywood would be a risk free business and make trillions, I think you need to research the facts a little more.

 

There is no "insurance" for the deal.

 

Maybe you're confusing "bonding" with some sort of mythical film loss insurance?

 

If a movie costs 100 million, and makes 50 million, there is no "insurance" to cover the 50 million loss.

 

R,

[Edward Lawrence Conley III]

Richard, so I did more research over our weekly dinner.

 

Technically he said, yes a bond but it comes from an insurance company.

 

He also said it is relatively risk free for the bank: because the bank isn't looking for nor can they predict a blockbuster- they are looking at recovering their loan, just like any other loan.

 

You ask for 20 million from the bank to make the movie. The Bank takes a brief look all of the possible revenue avenues that the film can use to make back the 20 million plus the interest.

It is the collateral for the loan. He said, surprisingly that all of the deals will make back the original loan money. Actually making a blockbuster return is a different beast but the bank doesn't care because they are only concerned with their original loan amount.

 

and the 20 million is bonded- the borrower has to buy the "insurance" on the return of the 20 million, it's written into the deal.

 

The bank recovers the 20 million whether or not the movie actually makes a dime.

 

Now the Bond company takes a microscope to the project- they get the script, look at the producer(s) director, actors etc. before they issue the bond because they are the ones taking the risk.

 

As far as a project directly funded by a studio he couldn't say because he doesn't work on any of that as they have their own in house financing but from his experience they would have to do somewhat similar financing. A studio like Disney can also cross collateralize the bigger projects.

[Guest]

Edward....a bond is a COMPLETELY different thing than insurance to cover investment losses in a film. We are discussing two different things here. And yes, as a producer who deals with both banks and bonding companies I do know the process.

 

OK, the BOND. Guarantees completion of the film and has to step in in the event the production goes over budget. They are on the hook to cover the shortfall. The bank lends money against bankable sales contracts, and government tax credits, and in rare instances provides a "gap loan" against future sales.

 

Important note, the 5 major studios do not use the banks or bonding companies. They effectively "self bond" their movies and cover any shortfall in the budget that comes up. This is different from film INSURANCE. The bonding company and the insurance company do two different things.

 

Independent producers making higher end movies use the bonding companies. Obviously you are not going to bond a $100, 000.00 movie. An independent producer will bond a 3 million dollar movie if the bank requires him to, and he is using the bank to interim finance the sales contracts and tax credits on the movie.

 

So back to my original point.....if a Hollywood studio invests 150 million in a film, and they lose 50 million on the deal due to poor ticket sales. There is no such thing as insurance one can buy to get back the 50 million that was lost.

 

Nor can an independent producer buy such insurance, it simply does not exist.

 

The bond guarantees completion and delivery of the film. It does not in any way cover investment losses on the film.

 

R,

[Guest]

You ask for 20 million from the bank to make the movie. The Bank takes a brief look all of the possible revenue avenues that the film can use to make back the 20 million plus the interest.

It is the collateral for the loan.

 

There is no bank in the world that will do this deal, impossible. The banks don't just loan money against the future revenues of a movie, and then expect a bonding company to pay them when they only get 10 million back instead of 20 million.

 

Maybe there's an "investment bank" out there that takes this kind of risk? Although I highly doubt it, after two movies and huge losses they'd be out of that business real quick.

 

If such a bank and lending product existed, every producer in the world would come running.

 

R,

[Michael LaVoie]

Richard, do you work with Fintage House? If so would you recommend them to an independent producer?

[Edward Lawrence Conley III]

They do exist, the law firm exists.

 

As I mentioned the risk is relatively low because despite the losses getting more press there are more money making productions completed than ones that lose money. Worldwide distribution has lowered the risk even more.

 

 

It is basically a completion bond.

 

"Completion bonds are often standard pre-project material for any large construction project or complex project involving large sums of money and/or multiple investors. They are a longstanding tradition in the entertainment business, where many variables can come into play which may affect the completion of a large movie project.

A third party guarantor will assess the risk to the projects completion and collect a premium for insuring the particular risks to a given project being completed on time, and on budget. Investors become much more likely to get involved, knowing that the project will be completed enough to be sold so they can recoup their investment."

Edited July 14, 2016 by Edward Lawrence Conley III

[Guest]

"Investors become much more likely to get involved, knowing that the project will be completed enough to be sold so they can recoup their investment."

 

Last try.....this does not mean the free market will respond with enough money so that investors can recoup their investment. It only means the project will be finished so that there will be a final product to sell.

 

There is no rule that says, if a movie costs 5 million, it will recoup 5 million. If it recoups 3 million, there is a 2 million dollar loss. And the bond does NOT, I repeat NOT, cover this 2 million dollar loss.

 

I don't understand why you can't see the difference? I don't mean to be rude Edward, but this is one of the more frustrating conversations I have had on this forum.

 

R,

[Edward Lawrence Conley III]

One of the assessments in the entertainment side is whether or not the production has secured distribution; Domestic and foreign.

 

It goes BEYOND the completion part.

 

 

I am following it.

 

 

You seem to not believe the words from a guy (not me) who works in the financing world of entertainment, goes to work M-F working on exactly these deals that you think don't exist.

Edited July 14, 2016 by Edward Lawrence Conley III

[Guest]

Richard, do you work with Fintage House? If so would you recommend them to an independent producer?

 

I have not worked with them, but I certainly recommend that a filmmaker does if they are making a distribution deal. Now, there are several ways a distributor can get around Fintage House, even after signing all the agreements. And there are those that do, as they are so desperate for money they'll do anything to steal from the producer.

 

The ONLY way to guarantee that you don't get ripped off is to skip Fintage House and set up a deal where the sales agent/distributor can make a sale. Then the delivery of the materials and collection of the money is done by the producer, not, the distributor. Once the producer collects the money, he sends the sales agent his fee, and that's it.

 

Few if any sales agents will sign a deal like this, and why? Because then their ability to steal all your money drops to zero, that's why.

 

R,

[Guest]

OMG Edward, please go away, you seriously have no clue what you're talking about. Good-bye.

 

Nor do you fully understand what your friend is telling you. Or, you are not explaining this scenario properly to him.

 

For the last time......there is NO insurance against free market shortfalls. Never has been, never will be.

 

R,

[Matthew W. Phillips]

For the last time......there is NO insurance against free market shortfalls. Never has been, never will be.

 

R,

The ONLY industry that seems to be able to gamble, lose, and still come out fine is the world of "too big to fail" banks, apparently. Us mere mortals must deal with our bad decisions.

[Guest]

The ONLY industry that seems to be able to gamble, lose, and still come out fine is the world of "too big to fail" banks, apparently. Us mere mortals must deal with our bad decisions.

 

Edward will figure this out, eventually. However, I appear to be not the one qualified to explain this basic principle.

 

And you're quite right about the banks. Although, I would be the least surprised to hear a news story like this. Disney loses 100 million on their latest tent pole epic, asks congress for, and gets, 100 million in a government bailout.

 

R,

[Matthew W. Phillips]

 

Edward will figure this out, eventually. However, I appear to be not the one qualified to explain this basic principle.

It's not that you arent qualified...its that he isnt listening.

[George Ebersole]

Richard; getting back to your original post, I think tentpoles are a "last gasp" of a film market model that has to keep growing in order to support itself, otherwise it collapses and fails.

 

The last big "tent pole" pic I went to see was Disney's new Star Wars film, which felt like a Disney film, but also felt like a mitigation between the big crowds who go to see movies because it's the thing to do, and the fan boys and die hard fans of the genre. It felt like a tent pole movie. That verse original SW and its sequels which were also tent pole films, but emphasized the need to make a decent movie with characters and story.

 

It would not shock me if TV continued to grow as the new experimental venue, and the movie houses either reformed or were reworked, scaled back, or perhaps even closed down altogether. I think they stay alive because there are newer non-tent-pole films that people like to see. But that niche appears to be shrinking. Just my casual two bits.

[Landon D. Parks]

Most of the good, worthwhile stuff is on TV now. Not sure what it is - I guess its the ability to build more story and character in the TV format. In all honesty, it's been a while since I been to the cinema. Hardly anything speaks to me. It's all superhereo movies, comedies, and odd-ball action flicks. Meanwhile, I have Supernatural and Game of Thrones just to name two shows, that have kept me entertained for many years now. Many TV series go on for years, building a loyal fan base. Meanwhile, even the biggest of the big tentpole films might have a few good wekends of hype, and then all but die out.

Edited July 17, 2016 by Landon D. Parks

[Satsuki Murashige]

'Game of Thrones' is an interesting case because you have a pre-existing tightly plotted storyline, vividly drawn characters with long complicated story arcs, and a rich, fully imagined world that has been worked out by one writer over many years. I don't know if there's ever been another show where they've set up plot points and backstory in Season 1 that are now paying off in Season 6. 'The Wire' is probably the closest that I've seen.

 

I remember being very excited when HBO first picked up the pilot for this reason, having read all the existing novels by that point. I never expected the showrunners to exceed expectations like this though. It will be interesting to see if they are able to wrap it up to the audience's satisfaction now that they are completely out of pre-existing material.

 

The most valuable resource from a creative's perspective is time to create and work out story problems before beginning production. When projects are announced and release dates set before the screenwriting process has even begun, there's almost no chance that the end result will be both good and original.

[Guest]

'Game of Thrones' is an interesting case because you have a pre-existing tightly plotted storyline, vividly drawn characters with long complicated story arcs, and a rich, fully imagined world that has been worked out by one writer over many years.

 

AKA.....soft porn.

 

R,

[Landon D. Parks]

Dammit Richard, it has dragons! And hot babes, too... Okay, I surrender... Soft-core porn. Good soft-core porn, though.

[Satsuki Murashige]

AKA.....soft porn.

 

Why would that be a draw for anyone with a working internet connection?

[Guest]

Why would that be a draw for anyone with a working internet connection?

 

Here's the counter question Satsuki.....if Game of Thrones is all the things you say it is, then why does it need any nudity or sex at all? After all, it's so well made and written, and appeals to such an intellectual crowd, seems it would not need to rely on nudity and sex scenes. The sexual content is in the show for a reason, why?

 

R,

[John E Clark]

 

Here's the counter question Satsuki.....if Game of Thrones is all the things you say it is, then why does it need any nudity or sex at all? After all, it's so well made and written, and appeals to such an intellectual crowd, seems it would not need to rely on nudity and sex scenes. The sexual content is in the show for a reason, why?

 

R,

 

Unlike most 'intellectuals' I don't divorce myself from appreciating the naked body of humans set in erotic situations. I don't have a problem nudity and sex even if some people call it 'gratuitous'. If the 'story' has people in bed having sex... they are most likely naked... if the story has people waking up... depending.. there's a high probability that they are naked... unless someone was so drunk that they don't know how they got in to bed naked... they sure don't draw up the sheets/blankets, and cover themselves upon getting out of bed.

 

There was a debate a few years back when Michaelangelo's "Last Judgement" was restored. Originally Michaelangelo painted the figures with 'full nudity' in many cases.

 

As the 16the Century wore on there was a great shift to prudery...

 

On the topic of the expurgation of "The Last Judgement". The Expurgated versions were retained.

----

Pope's own Master of Ceremonies Biagio da Cesena said of the painting "it was mostly disgraceful that in so sacred a place there should have been depicted all those nude figures, exposing themselves so shamefully," and that it was no work for a papal chapel but rather "for the public baths and taverns," Michelangelo worked Cesena's face into the scene as Minos, judge of the underworld (far bottom-right corner of the painting) with Donkey ears (i.e. indicating foolishness), while his nudity is covered by a coiled snake. It is said that when Cesena complained to the Pope, the pontiff joked that his jurisdiction did not extend to hell, so the portrait would have to remain.^[3]

Two decades after the fresco was completed, the decrees of the Council of Trent urged restraint in religious imagery. The genitalia in the fresco were painted over with drapery after Michelangelo died in 1564 by the Mannerist artist Daniele da Volterra (who because of that got the nickname "Il Braghettone", meaning "the breeches maker"), when the Council of Trent condemned nudity in religious art.^[1] The Council's decree in part reads:

Every superstition shall be removed ... all lasciviousness be avoided; in such wise that figures shall not be painted or adorned with a beauty exciting to lust... there be nothing seen that is disorderly, or that is unbecomingly or confusedly arranged, nothing that is profane, nothing indecorous, seeing that holiness becometh the house of God. And that these things may be the more faithfully observed, the holy Synod ordains, that no one be allowed to place, or cause to be placed, any unusual image, in any place, or church, howsoever exempted, except that image have been approved of by the bishop.

---

 

Which of course killed grand church art that was a center piece of the Italian Renaissance art.

Edited July 18, 2016 by John E Clark

[Matthew W. Phillips]

 

Here's the counter question Satsuki.....if Game of Thrones is all the things you say it is, then why does it need any nudity or sex at all? After all, it's so well made and written, and appeals to such an intellectual crowd, seems it would not need to rely on nudity and sex scenes. The sexual content is in the show for a reason, why?

 

R,

 

 

 

Unlike most 'intellectuals' I don't divorce myself from appreciating the naked body of humans set in erotic situations. I don't have a problem nudity and sex even if some people call it 'gratuitous'. If the 'story' has people in bed having sex... they are most likely naked... if the story has people waking up... depending.. there's a high probability that they are naked... unless someone was so drunk that they don't know how they got in to bed naked... they sure don't draw up the sheets/blankets, and cover themselves upon getting out of bed.

 

There was a debate a few years back when Michaelangelo's "Last Judgement" was restored. Originally Michaelangelo painted the figures with 'full nudity' in many cases.

 

As the 16the Century wore on there was a great shift to prudery...

 

On the topic of the expurgation of "The Last Judgement". The Expurgated versions were retained.

----

Pope's own Master of Ceremonies Biagio da Cesena said of the painting "it was mostly disgraceful that in so sacred a place there should have been depicted all those nude figures, exposing themselves so shamefully," and that it was no work for a papal chapel but rather "for the public baths and taverns," Michelangelo worked Cesena's face into the scene as Minos, judge of the underworld (far bottom-right corner of the painting) with Donkey ears (i.e. indicating foolishness), while his nudity is covered by a coiled snake. It is said that when Cesena complained to the Pope, the pontiff joked that his jurisdiction did not extend to hell, so the portrait would have to remain.^[3]

Two decades after the fresco was completed, the decrees of the Council of Trent urged restraint in religious imagery. The genitalia in the fresco were painted over with drapery after Michelangelo died in 1564 by the Mannerist artist Daniele da Volterra (who because of that got the nickname "Il Braghettone", meaning "the breeches maker"), when the Council of Trent condemned nudity in religious art.^[1] The Council's decree in part reads:

Every superstition shall be removed ... all lasciviousness be avoided; in such wise that figures shall not be painted or adorned with a beauty exciting to lust... there be nothing seen that is disorderly, or that is unbecomingly or confusedly arranged, nothing that is profane, nothing indecorous, seeing that holiness becometh the house of God. And that these things may be the more faithfully observed, the holy Synod ordains, that no one be allowed to place, or cause to be placed, any unusual image, in any place, or church, howsoever exempted, except that image have been approved of by the bishop.

---

 

Which of course killed grand church art that was a center piece of the Italian Renaissance art.

I agree with Richard that GoT seems to rely on appealing to the primitive part of people for ratings. I also agree with John that this isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

I DO find it hypocritical, however, that GoT is critically praised while a movie like Caligula was universally panned. I found Caligula to be superior in every way from set design to great talented cast and it left me seriously thinking about the dangers of living a life for only one's own gratification.

 

I had a rather humorous conversation with my wife the other day that I believe Christians should view Caligula to get a deeper insight into the time period and unimaginable tyranny that the early Church lived under. I doubt most churches would agree with me though. :lol: