Comment on Disney lost nearly a third of a billion dollars on two Marvel movies

wrig9547@lemm.ee ⁨22⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

• protist@mander.xyz ⁨22⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Studios shoot in the UK to benefit from its Audio-Visual Expenditure Credit (AVEC) which gives them a cash reimbursement of up to 25.5% of the money they spend in the country.

  It’s not like they were handed a blank check, they spent hundreds of millions more paying people and buying stuff in the UK to get that rebate

  source

  • PineRune@lemmy.world ⁨21⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    “As the CEO, if I pay myself $100 million for making this movie, I will get $25 million of that back from government reimbursement.”

    No big budget movie will ever make a profit because they make sure the big wigs get paid the amount the profit would have been. It is intentional.

    source

    • protist@mander.xyz ⁨21⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      It goes into more detail in the article about how they qualify for that rebate, and no, that’s not how it works.

      source

      • PineRune@lemmy.world ⁨20⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        Image

        Easy. I’m the new CEO of the company we set up there. Employee salary is an expenditure, and being a company in that country, it qualifies for that rebate unless there’s more details I’m missing. I was also grossly over-simplifying in my original comment, I’m sure it’s more complicated than that. I also just attribute Hollywood Accounting (see other commenter’s post) to anything listed as a box office loss.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • walter_wiggles@lemmy.nz ⁨21⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

      source
• Ptsf@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Wait till you find out the literal billions Georgia (USA) gives away to filmmakers via a tax credit that’s been proven to not be more effective than social programs by a significant margin at generating community wealth…

  (www.audits.ga.gov/ReportSearch/download/28730)

  source

  • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    It’s because trickle down-style policies give more wealth and social power to those at the top while allowing the argument that the economic activity that results from that wealth benefits everyone down the pyramid (which also creates a dependency on more instances of these transfers as businesses grow to accommodate the extra demand).

    Social programs do that without giving more wealth or social power to people at the top.

    The effectiveness that they care about isn’t the economic benefit or allowing people to become more independent, it’s about funneling money to the rich in the hopes that they will funnel some of it back in a way that won’t look so much like corruption.

    source

    • Ptsf@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Indeed. You’d be shocked the amount of people I’ve spoken with that believe otherwise. They see the positive side of the numbers and don’t think about the long term implications for even a moment it seems.

      source