Hollywood Accounting

[robcat2075]

James Garner's experience with Hollywood accounting...

 

http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/201...n-leverage.html

[Rodney]

Thanks for keeping an eye on this subject Robert. It's a good one to keep in mind.

 

It's a very good thing Mr. Gardner had the money to see that case through to the end or he'd have not only been relieved of the money due him but he also would lost a ton in the court fees. Knowledge is power and Gardner knew what was going on behind the scenes. Perhaps most importantly, he had a signed contract and was able to negotiate from a position of strength.

 

There is a nasty side of this even after his 'win' that still lingers, rings hollow and is remains unsettling.

While Mr. Garner apparently saw some justice in his case, settling out of court or cutting the deal alloweed the company to continue as they did before, simply moving down the line to the next poor sucker who doesn't understand or care to be bothered by understanding contractual obligations and legalese. It's important to realize that the company in this case did not lose anything... perhaps temporarily... but this was an acceptable loss for them. Corporation are designed for dealing with such things. If the price is too high or a real loss is pending companies can declare bankruptcy and never pay a cent in the end. Then they just dissolve and form a new company. No doubt they can even find useful ways to leverage all of that lost money. If a true accounting was taken while Gardner way paid, I doubt that the company ended up paying Gardner anything.

 

The fact that Garner and others in similar cases cannot disclose the sum settled for out of court is of telling importance. Not because we want to know how much Garner recovered... that's really none of our business... but because that sum is an indicator of how much money (at a minimum) the company was willing and able to fleece. The company made a lot more than what they were willing to settle for out of court or they never would have settled in the first place. What they really don't want is for everyone to know exactly how much money they really make. That information is only for those who are in on the corporate take.

 

This makes me wonder what would happen if Gardner did release the value of the deal.

Would the company stop paying him or his estate because that information was released?

 

Because these important details are not released we don't know how far short (or above) the originally contracted sums those who 'settle' are paid. It seems reasonable that most of the terms of that settlement will not be paid in money but perhaps in stocks, bonds and other innovative ways that prevent the company from having to pay out any money. They simply collect the money invested from other people and shift it to the Garners without incurring any new adverse contractual obligations. They don't have to repay investors or for that matterpay taxes or interest on that money either (if it's not clear the taxes would be paid for by the investors and/or the Garners in this case). In most cases the corporation simply shifts other peoples money from place to place while siphoning off what they can 'legally' claim. I'd call that, "tapping the vein."

 

I understand the need for privacy but when it comes to individual litigation that crosses over into the realm of public matters such as these there is a compelling public need for transparency. I suppose that short of that transparency, the best thing that can be done with regard to these private cases is make sure all of the releasable information is well known and organized, broadly available and widely accepted as precedence for negotiation. Then whenever a party chooses to break the faith or attempts to weasel out of the contract this precedence is trotted out and all parties begin to renegotiate from that contractual position of strength. Not that it'd be worth it in the end but if this was done more often I think more people would end up owning a larger percentage of these companies in the aftermath of that renegotiation.

[robcat2075]

I suppose it's an indicator of something that fake conspiracies like alien autopsies and birth certificates get lots of play but the real conspiracies with real money are only mentioned in passing.

[Rodney]

I suppose it's an indicator of something that fake conspiracies like alien autopsies and birth certificates get lots of play but the real conspiracies with real money are only mentioned in passing.

 

That would make an interesting study.

 

Perhaps we simply prefer to be entertained.

Perhaps the truth isn't sensational enough so we prefer invented things.

Perhaps we don't want to acknowledge we would probably do worse to others in a similar situation.

 

(It is not clear to me why an alien would even need a birth certificate)

[Roger]

This kind of thing should boil the blood of any creative type. A lot of times people will be offered a "deal" based on net profits instead of gross, the problem of course being with net profits they can always claim that there were none. I suppose there is also potential to manipulate the gross and screw you there too (somehow) but it seems like it would be much more difficult.

[robcat2075]

Widely noted... the Star Wars films haven't made money

 

 

 

 

(It is not clear to me why an alien would even need a birth certificate)

 

To run for President, silly!

[John Bigboote]

Always liked James Garner... he had a 'cool' that Newman, Redford or McQueen didn't. Good for him... bad for us that we live in such a corrupt world.

[mouseman]

I've also heard that Alan Alda sued for profits in MASH, and David Duchovny for the X-Files, and Peter Jackson sued New Line Cinema for Lord of the Rings.

[robcat2075]

Martin Mull liked to say "Hollywood is like high school, but with money."