ATTN JMS: Why sign 'net' deals?
Charles Gregory
> Date: 16 Jan 2000 01:19:17 -0700
> Net means nothing because they can continue to charge anything and
> everything against the revenue, and you can never show a profit on
> paper; it's only if you own a piece of the gross that actual money
> appears.
So if everyone in the industry *knows* this, why do studios write in the
'net' clause? To insult your intelligence? Or is there a bizarre
circumstance of extraordinary success under which *someone* might
someday realize earnings from this clause?
Side Note: It's a darn pity that it takes more money to produce a series
than what can be offered by a Canadian station, or I'm quite sure the
Space channel in Canada would be funding Crusade on its own......
- Charles
...another happy Canadian who can turn on B5 any day he wants.
John W. Kennedy
> So if everyone in the industry *knows* this, why do studios write in the
> 'net' clause?
I think it's a sort of honorific. Being promised a piece of the
nonexistent "net" means you're not completely a nameless peon who works
for straight pay. They've actually noticed you.
The next step up is "gross after negative" ("negative" as in film).
That will actually get you something if the film makes a profit, because
they can't keep adding paper expenses for making copies and keeping it
in the warehouse and mailing it to theaters and paying the pension of
the guy on the loading dock etc., etc., etc.. Once the movie is
finished and paid for, you get a percentage of everything beyond that.
But it's very tough to get "gross after negative".
Just plain "gross" means you get a percentage of all sales even if the
thing is a money-losing flop. Only the gods of Hollywood get that deal.
--
-John W. Kennedy
-rri...@ibm.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
Lisa Deutsch Harrigan
Lucas got 5 percent of Star Wars and boy did that pay off! He also got a
major percent of tie-ins and the rest is mind boggling.
Now he owns the movies he produces and Twentieth Century distributes them.
Real nice when you can get it.
Auntie M <*>
Jms at B5
>circumstance of extraordinary success under which *someone* might
>someday realize earnings from this clause?
It is, to be honest, kind of insulting, an assessment I think most people would
agree with. But the way the town works is that everything's incremental.
First you work for just the salary; then you get a net deal (which means you're
STILL working for just the salary but on paper you're a profit participant),
then you go for an *adjusted* net deal, which means that someday down the road
you'll see a small amount of money, then you can get an adjusted net deal with
a better definition of revenue streams and items which the studio can and can't
charge against the profits of your show...and someday, some far, far distant
day, you may be able to argue for a small piece of the gross, if the prior
shows have been wildly successful.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)
Mac Breck
Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000118231009...@ng-fg1.aol.com...
> >So if everyone in the industry *knows* this, why do studios write in the
> >'net' clause? To insult your intelligence? Or is there a bizarre
> >circumstance of extraordinary success under which *someone* might
> >someday realize earnings from this clause?
>
> It is, to be honest, kind of insulting, an assessment I think most people
would
> agree with. But the way the town works is that everything's incremental.
> First you work for just the salary; then you get a net deal (which means
you're
> STILL working for just the salary but on paper you're a profit
participant),
> then you go for an *adjusted* net deal, which means that someday down the
road
> you'll see a small amount of money, then you can get an adjusted net deal
with
> a better definition of revenue streams and items which the studio can and
can't
> charge against the profits of your show...and someday, some far, far
distant
> day, you may be able to argue for a small piece of the gross, if the prior
> shows have been wildly successful.
Depressing. Seems like they're trying to discourage people from getting in
the business, or staying in the business.
Mac
Cassius81
>Depressing. Seems like they're trying to discourage people from getting in
>the business, or staying in the business.
Sounds to me like they want writers who'll work cheap.
A not-so-subtle distinction.
Cassius' Quote of the Day:
Asuka (explaining thermal expansion): "Look, if I put my hands on my breasts,
do you think they'll grow larger, or smaller?"
Shinji: "I don't know! I don't think about wierd stuff like that!"
in_vale...@hotmail.com
jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:
> ...and someday, some far, far distant
> day, you may be able to argue for a small piece of the gross, if the
> prior shows have been wildly successful.
And on that day, one will have evolved into Jack Nicholson. :)
Man, what a deal he walked away with from BATMAN! Too think, he
actually took a salary *cut* to play the Joker ...
scott tilson.
---------------------
Recommended: TRANSMETROPOLITAN by Warren Ellis & Darick Robertson.
http://www.diamondcomics.com/previews/editorial/readinglamp/ratscellar.h
tml
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.