Replies

Well, there are some movie industry facts that perhaps you should be aware of: when you pay for (as Bannon did) the production of a film, that's all you have, the film. BUYING the screen time is a term called "prints and advertising," and it's a totally separate category from the production costs. Usually, this is about double the cost of the film, and I'm betting "Undefeated" was about $1m to produce (Steve didn't tell me his budget). It is handled by a distributor who wagers that his underwriting of the film will be offset by theater tickets. So a distributor has to be assured that he'll get back at least $3.50 ($2 for the cost of the P&A, $1 for the cost of the film, plus profit---and I could be very, very light on the profit.)

They are doing what is called a "limited release" like "Atlas Shrugged." If it does well, they expand the # of theaters.

Now, I corresponded with Steve just a week ago about his distribution and he never once mentioned the theaters, so I'm guessing they aren't too important in his model. He is getting a whale of Wal-Mart, Netflix, and other orders.

Ok, that makes sense.

Next question: Since the distributor, which I assume is AMC (?), controls the number of copies produced in a limited release, who decides where thos copies go? It seems obvious to me that if one places all the limited release in liberal meccas like San Francisco, Boston, Seattle, etc., they can make the film appear not commercially viable, right?

Since the only measure of its popularity/profit potential is the box office, little things like the numbers of the public who are willing to travel the 50-200 miles to see it do not enter into the equation, just how much $ goes into the till.

Next question: Who has control of the DVD rights? If I cannot get to see it in a theater, I'd sure like to see it at home and share it with a few hundred friends by purchasing a quantity.....