|
|
Author
|
Topic: $350 vs. 35%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John McConnel
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 118
From: Okmulgee, OK USA
Registered: Nov 2003
|
posted 01-08-2006 03:50 PM
Regarding the negotiability of terms, the guarantee is the part of the deal that isn't adjusted. Or, at least, is very, very seldom adjusted.
Perhaps Cody could change the styling of the terms, and drop the guarantee, but still pay money up front to assure the distributor that payment of film rental will be made. Instead of $350 vs 35%, change the terms to 35% with an advance of $350. With this styling, if the film rental were less than the advance, credit would then be available to apply to the next picture.
It is likely, however, that minimums would still be enforced, two examples of which are $150 for Paramount, and $200 for Buena Vista. But then even this is occasionally negotiable.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 01-09-2006 03:53 AM
And of course that 35% is not a fixed rate either, depending on the market, here in NYC, for example, newer and/or more popular titles can demand higher guarantees and percentages. I think the highest I ever paid for a title was FANTASIA at $1000 against 50%. And the same for BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, but they were right on the heals of the break. Most times the guarantees vary more widely that the percentages -- I haven't seen $150 in years, but $250 on the low end to $600 on the high end, except Buena Vista (Disney) of course -- the Mouse loves the sound of the Grand. When you do a double feature, the guarantee will still be $35 if they are from the same distributor; if they are from different distributors, then they will usually split the guarantee 17.5% and 17.5% each.
But for the above I'm talking about theatrical bookings. If you go to non-theatrical houses like Swank -- you would think non-theatrical would mean LOWER prices, but it doesn't. At Swank, 50% is the LOWEST percentage you can get and they go up from there on the newest titles. This is a high price to pay given the fact that any picture booked non-theatrically means you cannot advertize. Besides, Swank only goes to the studio bookers and books the same prints you would get if you booked it directly. So you are paying for a middleman (Swank). I would suggest you always try to book as a commercial, theatrical cinema when you can. But if you are a school or a museum, you may not have a choice as Swank has contracted the rights to book to those "non-theatricals" and the studio won't book directly to you.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Martin McCaffery
Film God
Posts: 2481
From: Montgomery, AL
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 01-12-2006 04:40 PM
quote: Carl Martin so, if i understand correctly, if you are non-theatrical, you pay more for your rental, can't advertise it, and maybe get a crap print. i guess the thing to do is, by whatever means necessary, to get yourself classified as theatrical.
Yup. Of course the theory behind non-theatrical is to supply schools, libraries and film societies, which, generally, don't have 35mm capabilities. And also don't charge admission, so the non-theatric distrib gets its money up front.
Obviously theory and real life don't always correspond;>
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|