i'm confused. your quote says that he is paid based upon the net revenues of the film. and that's what i'm saying.
he gets paid before taking into account any expenses. he gets paid on the net revenues that the film generates. PERIOD. that means that he is paid a certain percentage of revenues no matter what the other expenses are. if the movie grosses 100 million at the box office, he gets 27 million dollars. the movie could lose $50 million.........and he'd still get $27 million. and yes he ALSO gets a piece of the net income.....AFTER HE GETS HIS CUT OF THE GROSS REVENUES. but make no mistake he made sure he got his 27% of the gross revenues FIRST. then if the venture's statement of profit and loss is in the black he gets a cut of that too.
you do know what net revenues means right? Oh God you don't. please.........just..... ....stop.
the quote regarding Moore's take on various films mentions his compensation is based on "net revenue" and "profits"
For most types of business net revenue is Revenue less sales returns and allowances.
Clearly it has a different meaning in this industry because Box Office Receipt less 50% to the theaters left 130 million in what should be "net revenue" but then they deducted the expenses of "marketing,
production, and distribution" before arriving at "net revenue". Production likely includes the cost to make the film. So Net revenue sounds a lot more like "net income" or "profits" than it does "net revenue"
With Fahrenheit, after the theaters took their standard 50% cut of box office receipts, roughly $130 million in revenue was left over. When you take away marketing, production and distribution expenses, Miramax and Moore were left with an estimated $80 million payday. Moore's 27% cut on this film alone would eventually work out to roughly $21.6 million. He was actually entitled to 50% of the profits of Sicko which reportedly generated an additional $17 million payday for Michael. Moore is the author of eight books to date, several of which have gone on to be New York Time best sellers. Michael received a reported $1 million advance for "Dude Where's My Country" plus a generous percentage of the book sales
Further on in the same quote it said he was entitled to "50% of the
profits" of Sicko"
So in both cases his income is directly tied to the financial success of the film whether is net revenue (calculated after a bunch of expenses are deducted) or "profits"
Either way it shows your guarantee to me that Michael Moore's compensation was not based upon the net income of the venture is complete bullshit. Even if you want to argue that net revenue doesn't "walk and talk" like net income you can't argue that regarding Sicko which explicitly says "profits"
Once again this has nothing to do with the false premise that started this thread