It's one thing to take a profitable film and assign applicable costs to it to reduce overall NI, but I seriously doubt the companies just piss money away because they don't want to pay tax. Unless those escalators are HUGE, I really don't see any way at all they'd purposely produce losing films.

Perhaps I'm missing your point. I can understand maximizing return on taxable income, and to a lesser extent, understand that if they make X money they have to pay certain other people Z instead of Y.

But I really doubt they're going to produce "Buehler445 shits in the field and buries it" for $100M just because they need a loser.

I understand that. That's why I think we're talking about different things.

There are ways to make a film that's grossed $400 million dollars appear as a "loser" on the balance sheet and reasons the studio would do so.

One, is so that they're taxable income is significantly lower. Two, is to avoid paying escalators to the talent, e.g., the director and movie stars get "x" percentage if the film earns "x" amount after net income.

Every studio knows that every film isn't going to resonate with the viewers. Sometimes, those films are scheduled opposite other "blockbusters" in order to make sure that the film is a "loser". Other times, it just happens. At the end of the day, everyone was paid, the studio gets to write-off the loss and everyone goes home happy.

On the music side, we signed songwriters and bands that either sold zero records because their album was never released (even after spending $1 million or more in recording and publishing) or bands and artists that couldn't find an audience.

It was up to the discretion of the CFO as to how to write those off (this year, spread out over several years, etc.) but it did happen and was expected.

Is that book legit?

Is it a new EU series or is it a tie-in leading up to the new movie?

Income statement? I'm not sure how it would end up on the balance sheet.

That makes good sense. Tax planning is sound business strategy as long as the auditors are happy.

So they're not actively seeking losers, right? If during the production or marketing, it looks like it might not do as well, I can see what you're saying. But I still can't see taking on a project that you know is going to lose actual money.

EDIT: Not trying to be a dick. I'm just a business nerd.

Are you saying they've determined what old L/H/L are going to be like and passed that on to writers?

It's a new standalone book that's already been released.

Apparently it's kind of boring. About L/H/L's final adventure or something. They help Lando fight some kind of corporate war.

No the writers used the Schwartz to write the new novels!:D

I read that they would need to gross 800 million world wide on that turd to make a profit after the cut that theaters take.

Ouch.

God that sounds exciting. Lucas must have had input.

Against the Occupy Hoth movement?

'

Why would one want to visit Hoth, much less occupy it?

LMAO