tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24904037.post384116152888010274..comments2024-01-11T04:57:37.530-04:00Comments on The Furious D Show: Hollywood Babble On & On #1232: We Gotta Question!Furious Dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07934529688753875751noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24904037.post-46680360357829356142015-05-15T13:08:56.624-03:002015-05-15T13:08:56.624-03:00The financial reason has to do with accounting rul...<i> The financial reason has to do with accounting rules. According to those rules a film that they bought for $3.5 million goes on their books as an asset worth $3.5 million.<br /><br />If they release that movie, they must then deduct the cost of its release from that value, and then add any profits that comes in.<br /><br />If the film bombs then it's considered a loss.<br /><br />So it's better to just have it sit there gathering dust.</i><br /><br />Ok, THAT'S what I was mostly wondering about (though of course nice to have all the other pontificating). I didn't know that bit and thought if it was just sitting around gathering dust instead of at least making SOME money that it was pretty much a sunk cost. That's what bugs me about some studios sitting on say... beloved TV shows and never releasing them to DVD where they could make money. Maybe not much money, but it would still be more than right now where people just pirate the thing because there's no way to legitimately enjoy them.<br /><br />So here's another question raised by you and the vid: Why do the companies do a test screening when it premiered at the TIFF? I mean isn't a film festival itself a test screening?Nate Winchesterhttp://natewinchester.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.com