Page 1 of 1
Final Cut Blu-ray is biggest seller on Amazon uk
Posted:
Sat Jun 13, 2009 6:56 amby ridleyville
I am thrilled to see that Blade Runner TFC is the top of the best seller chart at the moment. It has been out selling Slum dog and Grand Torino as well as Ghostbusters.
What a shame the original producers and writers do not earn any money from it. That must really hurt.
http://www.ridleyville.com
Posted:
Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:50 amby NEXUS 7
Writers get 0.3% DVD residuals. Directors get the same deal. So, 4 to 5 cents for every $15 DVD. For every million DVDs sold, that works out to about $50,000 each. Actors split up about 15 cents per DVD. Those are all union negotiated rates. Producers, I believe, are involved in 'profit participation' and the rates they receive vary widely and are negotiated at the time the film is made.
Posted:
Sun Jun 28, 2009 3:50 pmby ridleyville
Sorry it's taken so long to reply but in fact i think you will find that that is not the case for the producers Deeley and Kelly because it was taken over by the film completion bond system wich removes the rights from the original producers. Michael Deeley mentions this in his talk at the BFI earlier this year. I have been meaning to get the audio recording of this on my website but have not had time. I will try to do it this week. It is worth listening to because he slags of Yorkin and Perenchio quite well regarding this subject.
http://www.ridleyville.com
Posted:
Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:47 pmby NEXUS 7
The producers, no doubt, had a less than satisfactory deal on Blade Runner. The first problem was that their initial financing fell through while they were already in pre-production. Scrambling to replace their financing put them in a difficult bargaining situation -- so they took the deal they could get, which was not a good one. That's really where the big trouble started -- that contract. (It's briefly mentioned on one of the supplements.) Then when the completion bond was triggered they lost control of the film. That doesn't necessarily mean they get nothing in terms of profit participation -- though I suppose that is possible and acknowledge that possibility -- but it might seem like nothing to them. Or maybe it is nothing. I don't know. I'll take your word for it. Anyway, I look forward to listening to the audio on your site. Thanks for posting it!
Posted:
Fri Jul 03, 2009 1:04 pmby ridleyville
I have put up the first part of the Deeley interview and the comments about Yorkin and Perenchio are the first subject. It seems that Scot, Kelly, and Deeley have not received any profits from the film at all and at this moment in time their lawyers are in negotiation with the Partnership. The BR Partnership apparently re-negotiated with Warner after the 20 year limit was up and left out the original producers.
http://www.ridleyville.com
Posted:
Fri Jul 03, 2009 4:03 pmby Kipple
ridleyville wrote:I have put up the first part of the Deeley interview and the comments about Yorkin and Perenchio are the first subject.
Thanks for posting that. It was a treat.
Posted:
Fri Jul 03, 2009 4:13 pmby ridleyville
Thanks for posting that. It was a treat.
Thanks Kipple, sorry about the handling noise on the mic.
I am just cleaning up Rutger's session as i was right by the aircon and there is quite a bit of background noise.
Posted:
Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:03 pmby NEXUS 7
Wow, excellent conference. Thanks for posting it!
Ironic that The BR Partnership received outright film ownership. Had no idea. As that is the case, in addition to withholding money from profit participants, they might also be withholding residual payments from union members: director, writers, actors. Smaller companies or partnerships are notorious for that. Studios do that less often due to signatory agreements with the unions. Sounds like there could be a lawsuit brewing.