To those who have been distributed.

[capitalP]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/thr-esq/michael-moore-sues-weinsteins-fahrenheit-97138

Reading this article, I'm wondering have any of you guys who have gotten distribution through a distributor ever took the steps of having them audited?

You hear all the time, a filmmaker never makes money of their first movie, just curious what steps have you guys taken to actually confirm that you're not owed money?

Through my distributor, I ask them for quarterly reports every year and somehow the report always seems to favor them, maybe their doing that “new math.”

I've considered hiring a CPA to audit them, but here's the dilemma, that audit will cost me money and there’s no guarantee that I'll be owed money but I have to do it or else it'll haunt me forever. Just need to save up my pennies to hire a CPA.

I'm not saying the Michael Moore thing is true or false, but I assume it's more true on the indie level because we don't have big lawyers and I'm sure those companies know this and they hide the numbers real well. Either way, very interesting article.

From an image standpoint, this does not look good on the Weinstein Company but this may also get Moore blacklisted, interesting to see how this turns out.

 

[Martay]

The Weinsteins have a long reputation for withholding profits due to producers on films they acquire.

I won't be in position for any auditing for some time on my latest film and my previous efforts have done so little revenue that I haven't fought the distributors as yet. However, I do know what you mean when you talk about the reports always favor them.

The trick is to cap their potential outlay to ensure you're not endlessly charged recoupable expenses that will eat up any share you hope to collect.

Of course, I learned this the hard way over time.

Before the audit...be sure to weigh the cost vs. potential benefit. When you look at the reports, has there been enough revenue to reasonably believe you are owed significantly more than an audit will cost you? If so, then you might proceed. However, even if the audit proves your theory correct...then you'll incur even more costs to pursue the matter further. Like a lawyer to officially request funds...and what if they resist? And so on, and so forth.

I would bet it's worth it monetarily for Michael Moore to go through that, but for most of us, I'm sure the end result won't be a huge benefit other than to our peace of mind.

Again, The Weinsteins reputation will remain the same...just ask Neil Jordan, and countless other filmmakers who've dealt with their "hollywood accounting" over the years. The line has always remained the same. "They were paid what they were owed." That's the mantra from Miramax in the 90s and now for TWC .

-Martin

 

[capitalP]

That is very well put Martay. It may not even be worth the hassle. Thanks for chimmin in. I hope the outcome of your next project is better when that time do come.

Yeah I assume there's a lot more at stake than the 2million Michael Moore is claiming. The Weinsteins do have a habit of this huh, I really haven't heard much about it till this lawsuit. Those guys seems like their on the side of the indie filmmaker, but when it comes to money all that is out the window.

 

[luke stewart]

A friend of mine got a distribution deal and hasn't received a dime. I even saw his video for rent in a store, so its not like it did nothing. He advocates self distribution now, which is more work, but may be worth it.

 

[Martay]

The Weinsteins do have a habit of this huh, I really haven't heard much about it till this lawsuit. Those guys seems like their on the side of the indie filmmaker, but when it comes to money all that is out the window.

That's a well cultivated image they've crafted but they've got quite a different reputation on the inside.

Reading a book now called "Down and Dirty Pictures" by Peter Biskind which gives an eye-opening inside look at the rise of indies in the early 90s and focuses mostly on Sundance and Miramax during that time.

I'm in the middle of it now but it certainly has thrown a lot of misconceptions I had to rest and confirmed some suspicions I'd had too.

Interesting read if like me, you're a fan of the American Indie wave that was the 90s...probably the only reason I am still here as I was deeply involved in music at the time but fascinated with film and I gradually transferred my energies to the pursuit of screenwriting and filmmaking because of the "hope" of the indies of the 90s.

-Martin

 

[Foster Kane]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/thr-esq/michael-moore-sues-weinsteins-fahrenheit-97138

Reading this article, I'm wondering have any of you guys who have gotten distribution through a distributor ever took the steps of having them audited?

You hear all the time, a filmmaker never makes money of their first movie, just curious what steps have you guys taken to actually confirm that you're not owed money?

Through my distributor, I ask them for quarterly reports every year and somehow the report always seems to favor them, maybe their doing that “new math.”

I've considered hiring a CPA to audit them, but here's the dilemma, that audit will cost me money and there’s no guarantee that I'll be owed money but I have to do it or else it'll haunt me forever. Just need to save up my pennies to hire a CPA.

I'm not saying the Michael Moore thing is true or false, but I assume it's more true on the indie level because we don't have big lawyers and I'm sure those companies know this and they hide the numbers real well. Either way, very interesting article.

From an image standpoint, this does not look good on the Weinstein Company but this may also get Moore blacklisted, interesting to see how this turns out.

This reminds me of an article about the creative accounting Harry Potter Films.

http://www.deadline.com/2010/07/stu...ause-of-warner-bros-phony-baloney-accounting/

Are there any books or websites that explains the ins and outs of studio accounting?