1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. REC.ARTS.TV

  • How to lose money making a movie using creative accounting

    From Adam H. Kerman@21:1/5 to All on Thu Apr 24 05:40:22 2025
    No, even Mel Brooks couldn't dream up this scheme,

    The video is played for laughs but I'm sure everything he says is true.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-l2oFKZNak

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rhino@21:1/5 to Adam H. Kerman on Thu Apr 24 09:12:41 2025
    On 2025-04-24 1:40 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
    No, even Mel Brooks couldn't dream up this scheme,

    The video is played for laughs but I'm sure everything he says is true.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-l2oFKZNak

    If it's simply a matter of some accounting firms being crooked, you'd
    think the "talent" (or their agents) would have the smarts to insist
    that they will only participate in a movie or series if THEY have the
    right to veto the accountants used by the studio. Alternatively, they'd
    hired a forensic accountant to go over the books for a production and
    see what entries were kosher and which were not.

    Maybe the moves made by the studio accountants are all completely legal
    and aboveboard. In that case, it might be best to seek some kind of
    legislation changes so they can't lend themselves money at exorbitant
    interest rates, etc. etc.

    --
    Rhino

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From shawn@21:1/5 to no_offline_contact@example.com on Thu Apr 24 10:29:38 2025
    On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 09:12:41 -0400, Rhino
    <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

    On 2025-04-24 1:40 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
    No, even Mel Brooks couldn't dream up this scheme,

    The video is played for laughs but I'm sure everything he says is true.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-l2oFKZNak

    If it's simply a matter of some accounting firms being crooked, you'd
    think the "talent" (or their agents) would have the smarts to insist
    that they will only participate in a movie or series if THEY have the
    right to veto the accountants used by the studio. Alternatively, they'd
    hired a forensic accountant to go over the books for a production and
    see what entries were kosher and which were not.

    Maybe the moves made by the studio accountants are all completely legal
    and aboveboard. In that case, it might be best to seek some kind of >legislation changes so they can't lend themselves money at exorbitant >interest rates, etc. etc.

    The moves they are making are legal, as I understand it. They are just
    arranged to be in the studios favor. The problem is while popular
    actors can have a lot of power there's never going to be enough power
    to force studios to let them bring in forensic accountants and then
    use the information they gather against the studio. So the only power
    the actors have is to demand more $$$ up front.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Adam H. Kerman@21:1/5 to shawn on Thu Apr 24 15:21:05 2025
    shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
    Thu, 24 Apr 2025 09:12:41 -0400, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>: >>2025-04-24 1:40 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

    No, even Mel Brooks couldn't dream up this scheme.

    The video is played for laughs but I'm sure everything he says is true.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-l2oFKZNak

    If it's simply a matter of some accounting firms being crooked, you'd
    think the "talent" (or their agents) would have the smarts to insist
    that they will only participate in a movie or series if THEY have the
    right to veto the accountants used by the studio. Alternatively, they'd >>hired a forensic accountant to go over the books for a production and
    see what entries were kosher and which were not.

    Maybe the moves made by the studio accountants are all completely legal
    and aboveboard. In that case, it might be best to seek some kind of >>legislation changes so they can't lend themselves money at exorbitant >>interest rates, etc. etc.

    The moves they are making are legal, as I understand it. They are just >arranged to be in the studios favor. The problem is while popular
    actors can have a lot of power there's never going to be enough power
    to force studios to let them bring in forensic accountants and then
    use the information they gather against the studio. So the only power
    the actors have is to demand more $$$ up front.

    Forming a subsidiary or sister company or related company to sell
    supplies to a production at a grossly-inflated markup could certainly be
    an illegal act of self dealing. So is paying grossly-excessive interest on
    an internal loan. Catching this requires an audit, not forensic accounting,
    so it shouldn't be unreasonably expensive.

    I don't agree with you. They are all screwing each other over, and some
    of it would constitute fraud.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)