SCREEN-L Archives

December 1997, Week 5

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
Re: Most Expensive Movie Query
From:
Dave Spiceland <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 31 Dec 1997 10:32:24 +0000
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (22 lines) 
        1. Someone has alluded to the problem with inflation. $10-million
in 1939 is not $10-million in 1997. It would be interesting to take
the production figures for those past blockbusters and make it 1997
dollars.
 
        2. How reliable are those figures anywway? Hollywood accountants
have been notorious for "creative financing." Because of taxex, movies
have never turned a "profit." Stars that contracted for a share of the
profits never get a dime because the books show the movie/production was
in the red. I understand Fess Parker had to sue over his work with the TV
show "Daniel Boone" for that very reason.
 
Dave Spiceland, Ph.D.
Appalachian State University
Boone, North Carolina
[log in to unmask]
http://www1.appstate.edu/~spicelnd
 
----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2