I have posted a couple of times over the last year about why the current dvd sales boom is failing to trickle down and create a boom in the financing of independent features in the 3-5 million dollar range.
After all, once one takes into consideration the income sources for American films (with international box office and international dvd sales now outearning domestic grosses by far) how could a film with a 3-5 million dollar budget NOT make it's money back?
According to today's NY Times, the studios prefer to keep dvd sales figures private
www.nytimes.com/2005/01/3...31dvd.html
in order to perpetuate the long standing Hollywood accounting tradition that says most films lose money.
The reasons are obvious. The studios pay less taxes, less royalties, less in salaries to the big stars.
With a guesstimated annual sales volume of anywhere between 50 and 100 Billion dollars (who knows?) the mega-successful films pay for all of the flops and then some.
I don't begrudge the studios their money (this is America, after all) why do they have to make the bar to the marketplace so impenetrable?
After all, once one takes into consideration the income sources for American films (with international box office and international dvd sales now outearning domestic grosses by far) how could a film with a 3-5 million dollar budget NOT make it's money back?
According to today's NY Times, the studios prefer to keep dvd sales figures private
www.nytimes.com/2005/01/3...31dvd.html
in order to perpetuate the long standing Hollywood accounting tradition that says most films lose money.
The reasons are obvious. The studios pay less taxes, less royalties, less in salaries to the big stars.
With a guesstimated annual sales volume of anywhere between 50 and 100 Billion dollars (who knows?) the mega-successful films pay for all of the flops and then some.
I don't begrudge the studios their money (this is America, after all) why do they have to make the bar to the marketplace so impenetrable?
Comment