High price tag makes distributors see red

There Are 36 Responses So Far. »

1. 

   Comment by manoj16_391 on 13 October 2008:

   Selling the rights at such high prices doesnt look a good idea at all (prominent examples being SIK ,Race etc).

   Even a small-budgeted Rock on(26.07 cr till now) needs some more to recover the price.
2. 

   Comment by A C H I L L E S on 13 October 2008:

   RO been sold for 29 crores to Reliance is quite an absurd price. After being loved by its target plex audience, its still struggling to cross 30 crores … this movie will fetch good prices for its satellite and dvd rights though.

   Race and SIK have both suffered a backlash for its high price. Ghajini runs a risk of the same.

   These 120 or 150 crores deals are ridiculous to say the least, and if they get through will spell doom for Kites and Blue respectively, in spite of being Hrithik/Akshay movies.

   Hopefully producers know what is best for their films.

   BTW, with sensex dipping to the record low, Diwali BO is not looking to bright …. its all too gloomy for the business community and also for the common man investors.
3. 

   Comment by Kaveetaa Kaul on 13 October 2008:

   Ro being sold for 29 cr is quite boggling really.In other words it has barely recovered its sale price. Profits are a long way off. Even if they were to accrue with dvd rights etc one could place them at around 35 cr at the most..which would mean loosely translated a 20% profit. Now compare this with the projected success and perceived super hit status.

   Producers play clever games to ensure returns one way or another. There are some I know who have overpriced their films for the consumption of public knowledge to mark a loss in their closing accounts at the year end. For them the film was only another means to show a dead loss. The unsuspecting crew and team of course had no knowledge of the modus operandi.

   Others scale down their costs to the BO analysts to project profits, even in the first week. What is rarely kept in mind is the fact that its not cost price that matters but sale price to the distributors/exhibitors which would reflect the accurate picture.

   With such nebulous criteria in operation where machinations and projected half truths rule the day, BO figures hardly if ever engage me. I think it is important to evaluate a film on truths other than Bo returns. If a film manages to engage, engulf, excite and evoke responses, it is worth its while. Sadly though the rampancy of equating Bo success, which as we know now maybe just a ploy, with the intrinsic worth of the film is what is setting us back. It is an erroneous method of evaluation..even mathematically. A matter (BO) which should rightly be of concern to the exhibitors, sub exhibitors/distributors has become a national pre occupation
4. 

   Comment by Julie on 13 October 2008:

   Some good points made by Achilles and Kaveeta.

   The entire paradigm and assessment of BO performance has undergone some huge transformation. With the recent trend of high distribution price being quoted for big banners and products, it is speculative that the whole concept of linking BO performance with DP will indeed even continue. The Distribution Rights of Race, SIK and also RO gives rise to the speculation that trade experts will now search for new criterions for BO assessment otherwise purely on Distribution price basis these three are underperformers, even though I will put SIK as a hit because it’s worldwide collections overall were stupendous, thus justifying the colossal Distribution rights paid for the film. Trade still has a yardstick by which it goes, something that is not yet transparent to us, because these three have been unanimously declared as trade hits.

   If the 120 crores for Kites and 150 crores for Blue is indeed true, I think that producers here will make a killing, but sub distributors will struggle. Somewhere along the way somebody will not make profit. The entire parametric has altered here. Producers are making a killing because somewhere along the line distributors are willing to pay those astronomical figures for the stars, and the underlying products, but sub distributors down the ladder are suffering. Yet beyond a certain number, the trade will have no hesitation in terming these films as Super Hits to Blockbusters.
5. 

   Comment by A C H I L L E S on 13 October 2008:

   ^^^ Good post here Kaveetaa.

   Agree particularly on most points. RO may end up with 5-10% profit on economic terms but it does enjoy a Superhit perception among its audience.

   It has also been common instances, where producers scale down the budget after a poor opening or quote a scaled down or over-quoted budget in the first place. The budget figures fed to the public varies from one source to another much like the distribution prices and BO collections.

   So neither the exact collections nor the budgets are exact/absolute figures that cannot be challenged. In such a scenario, the BO analysts depend much on inside info from their own sources … and as a result none of the reputed BO analysts gives us any methodology for their verdicts or even the published collections.

   Now coming to the next point:

   “I think it is important to evaluate a film on truths other than Bo returns. If a film manages to engage, engulf, excite and evoke responses, it is worth its while.”

   The above alternative that you have quoted is equally ambiguous and inconclusive. How do you measure that a film has engaged/engulfed/excited/evoked responses?

   The present bollywood audience comprises of different sections with different tastes, and hardly any film in this decade has found universal acceptance among the mutually divided audience. Some worked well in single screens, some in plexes, some in metros, some in small centers.

   What you consider as good cinema may be just crap to someone else, and how do we decide to give more importance to one opinion and ignore the other? Does the opinion of the guy who buys expensive plex tickets become more important than a poor small-center bollywood cine-goer?

   Can we even take absolute collections (irrespective of budget or selling price) as the parameter for number of footfalls for a movie? Even then a partner had more footfalls than a CDI, even though their collections were in the same range.

   Then comes the genre factor … its easy for some moves to cross 50 crores mark irrespective of how good they are … whereas some movies cant cross the 30 crore barrier no matter how good they are.

   In this age nothing is universal, and with so much complexity, how to judge the success or merit of a movie?

   No matter what parameters you come up with, there will be several counter views.

   In the end, all we deal with are different opinions. Nothing more, nothing less.
6. 

   Comment by A C H I L L E S on 13 October 2008:

   Julie - well said … was about to write what you just said. Saved me the time!
7. 

   Comment by A C H I L L E S on 13 October 2008:

   Also, what we tend to ignore here is that these corporates who indulge in giving such astronomical prices to the producers for these package deals, are infact more interested to increase their annual turnover and do not mind earning no more than a mere commission on their huge investments.

   The producers on the other hand is saved from the headache of individually selling each right to the highest bidder, and makes a killing at one shot.

   The current change in distribution paradigm is beneficial to both parties, and its mostly us who keep cursing for just commission being earned on the deals instead of 50% or 100% returns! (the age old def for hits and superhits)

   The sub-distributors are the only ones who suffer under such modus operandi, be it for Race, SIK or SR.
8. 

   Comment by Kaveetaa Kaul on 13 October 2008:

   Achilles you are right in pointing out :

   How do you measure that a film has engaged/engulfed/excited/evoked responses?

   One word made all the difference, which was meant to be there but got missed out.

   It should have read ” If a film manages to ‘personally’ engage, engulf, excite and evoke responses, it is worth its while.”

   Films are a personal choice or rather should be one. Much like palate preferences.

   But what would Qualify for a universal success? Imo definitely not an ‘on table’ profit for the producer since this may be based entirely on star power by virtue of either his recent hit or then the expected rage it may create. As we have seen, oftentimes this structure fails miserably. When the exhibitors and distributors have made a profit, only then can the film be termed a genuine hit, when profits are filtered down to last seller, only then .

   Glad you agree on this :

   “So neither the exact collections nor the budgets are exact/absolute figures that cannot be challenged. In such a scenario, the BO analysts depend much on inside info from their own sources … and as a result none of the reputed BO analysts gives us any methodology for their verdicts or even the published collections.”

   Phew..it almost tumbles down into the uncharted labyrinth. this whole Godliness of Bo analysts. Hope more fans realise the truth behind the illusion of hits and flops.

   Julie.. good analysis “Yet beyond a certain number, the trade will have no hesitation in terming these films as Super Hits to Blockbusters.”..

   Tragic isnt it? especially since it is apparent to only a few while the majority seem to lap it all up as Gospel.

   Ach when you say “what we tend to ignore here is that these corporates who indulge in giving such astronomical prices to the producers for these package deals, are infact more interested to increase their annual turnover and do not mind earning no more than a mere commission on their huge investments.”

   True. But consider this. The roi in banks stands presently at around 10-11%. Most films take a couple of years from pre prod to release. Which would mean that an overall 22% is the least which should be the returns as profit for the financier, whether corporate or privately funded. Anything less is only an eyewash for the benefit of the shareholders and the viewing public to who the declaration of a hit is enough reason to throng theatres.

   This fake artificial show of profits and projected returns is crucial. Global meltdown a direct consequence, I presume. Talking of which it would be highly impractical to imagine that BW would remain un imapacted by it. The figures quoted in the article are preposterous in the given scenario.

   We must learn a thing or two from the Chinese film industry. they complete their films in 30 days or so. Pre prod and post prod being highly defined and structured, overheads are kept to a minimum. But this seems utopian in an industry like ours where the star prefers to shoot in Europe during summers etc.
9. 

   Comment by Julie on 13 October 2008:

   some excellent points made by Kaveeta and Achilles again.

   Kaveeta the analogy with Chinese film industry model is very apt. Unfortunately BW is behind by light years in terms of following that model. Blame it on the unprofessionalism in the value chain or the inefficiencies within the system of film production.

   By that token very very few films will now be profitable for the entire value chain that is involved in the film, be it producers, distributors or sub distributors.

   One question that has always puzzled me which is something that one of you may be able to address is the concept of producers profit. Are most producers into earning bulk of their profit upfront (table profit) or is it some quota i.e. 60% based on distribution rights and 40% post release (The latter percentile is just an example)? For example why would the distributor be willing to pay upfront 1.5x times the budget of a film that is dicey in theme or even BO prospect wise viz something which is comapratively safer.

   We may as well see the gear shift more and more to small scale budgeted films as they are the only ones seemingly making money for all concerned in the value chain.
10. 

    Comment by beld on 13 October 2008:

    i wonder if lot of this is converting black money to white. for someone to buy movies like this at absurd prices like 120 and 150 cr points to that. even a successful SIK could make only 75cr - so thats a good model for people to look at. OSO made 85+cr. and these were the 2 most hyped movies of the last 2 years. assuming someone beats it - at best by 20-30% thats 110cr max. plus overseas etc. btw how true are these figures - are producers/distributors fudging it for tax purposes - i wonder..
11. 

    Comment by A C H I L L E S on 13 October 2008:

    “The roi in banks stands presently at around 10-11%. Most films take a couple of years from pre prod to release. Which would mean that an overall 22% is the least which should be the returns as profit for the financier, whether corporate or privately funded.”

    While its very true that BW spends a ridiculous amount of time in pre and post productions, these package deal investments are done only after the post production is complete,i.e., before promotion starts. And these days even satellite and dvd rights get sold within months from the release. The package deal investors gets their returns over a short period … say around 6 months … and needs approx 5% returns to break even.

    The producer on the other hand locks his money in the project for a much longer time … and they they do make a killing with these deals. But that does not mean the movie is a hit … it has to earn the proportionate amount at the BO.

    I wont go down to the extent to say BW-BO is all fake and eyewash … but the structure gives everyone the liberty to become a trade expert, and hence we get so many different verdicts on the same movies from so many sources.

    If someone follows the comparatively reliable sources, one can get a fair idea about the range for collections, budgets and selling prices (not the exact amount though … just the range) … at the end of the day, in spite of such a faulty system, its not that difficult to figure out which are the flops and which are the hits.
12. 

    Comment by Gabber on 13 October 2008:

    I think we are missing another important picture here.

    This is a situation of demand and supply.

    Suppose a distributor buys Akshay Kumar’s Blue for 150 Cr, then obviously they are sure that either they will be able to sell it to sub-distributors or release the film themselves and make profits.

    Why will a sub distributor buy if they think that it is too risky than normal. If sub distributors do not buy, then distributor have to release the films themselves.

    If sub-distributors buy and then sells it to exhibitors, the process only elongates the supply chain and hence the film needs to earn more (SIK) than when distributors would have released the film themselves (JA).

    This in a way is leading to a scenario when few in the downstream of the value chain will not make profit because of bad business sense and not because the film did not find acceptance with the audience. Should we blame the producer of the film if a sub distributor who he does not know buys his film at an overprice - a price that producer or anyone involved with the film cannot control?

    IMO, a film’s success in the current situation of insane pricing should be measured only till the distributor’s level because it is the fault of exhibitors or sub distributors who buys film prints at exorbidant price.

    So instead of blaming the producers for selling the films at high price, one should blame the subdistributors for buying it with little business sense.
13. 

    Comment by A C H I L L E S on 13 October 2008:

    Agree Gabber … sub-distributors paying such exorbitant prices is bad business sense.

    Case in point - SIK.

    This movie has done as much overall business as akshay’s last blockbuster Welcome … even with 75-76 crores net total in India, if the sub-distributors can not recover their investment, then they had made a blunder in paying such prices.

    Akki’s popularity is on the rise, no doubt, but every next film is not going to have exponentially increased collections … the sub distributors need to understand this basic fact.

    CCTC may well do 85-90 crores … but whats the point in taking that as a given and pay prices accordingly? It can always ends it run a few crores less (and wud have still done very well).

    The present pricing system hardly makes much sense. The only explanation may be their greed is eclipsing their basic logic.
14. 

    Comment by A C H I L L E S on 13 October 2008:

    Or maybe that because of only 4-5 movies that all the top stars do in total in a year has made the demand for such movies much more than the supply … that the auctioning of prices has well reached a level beyond recovery.

    A similar situation will arise again when Ghajini releases … it will hardly have any margin for under-performing.
15. 

    Comment by jayshah on 13 October 2008:

    Is the best model the production cost, distributor cost or the sub-distributor cost? If I was looking at the box office from one of these parameters, the only one that makes sense to me is the production cost. Picking the distributor cost > subdistributor cost makes no sense to me - especially on the grounds that the latter is just “paying over the odds”. The same charge can be levied at the distributor by all accounts.

    The only one that makes sense to base a trade classification on for me is the production cost. This is the ACTUAL risk attached to any project. The producer has placed a 50Cr risk on Drona, by paying all people associated with the film, the cost to produce etc this sum of money. This is the truest investment in the project. It tells me, this film’s pure value is 50Cr.

    Now if this producer chooses to sell the “rights” of the film on for a bigger amount I can only say this is strictly business. The distributor IMO is no position to be a “better speculator” on the risk/value of the film. The producer has already placed the REAL bet. Anything else that happens in between is just middle-men who do not know what they are doing or just out to make more money.

    The producer owns the film. The public views the film. The public if they did not like the film, vent there frustrations at the film and the product of which is “owned” by the producer in their eyes. Not some Tom, dick and harry later in the chain. They don’t go to the distributor or sub-distributor and post on blogs like this and say its distributors fault.

    The point I am making here is the only direct relationship the audience/viewer has is with the film. That is there experience. The middle-men is just a ridiculous part of the chain, of which an audience cannot influence. The key connection in the value chain here is the film (producers baby) and the audience (there opinion). Everything else in between is just transactions between people who probably think Akshay Kumar film’s from NL to Welcome grew by 80% business so then SIK will be 80% more than Welcome.

    You explain to 99% of the indian population how film classifications are conducted today and they will suffer headache pains. Keep it simple, keep it clear, keep it transparent. Everyone understands cost vs revenue. People do it everyday at home, budget there wages, buy things etc.

    You cannot continue to support distribution theory when the whole theory defeats itself with films like SIK and Race. Then the theory is upheld to films like Sarkar Raj.
16. 

    Comment by rks on 13 October 2008:

    Glitches behind the glitz
17. 

    Comment by jayshah on 13 October 2008:

    “According to Mahesh Bhatt, film stars thrive on the paranoia of the security-seeking bosses of corporate houses. “These corporate honchos have no clue about movies. They talk about a new big idea but in actuality, they even prostrate before a self-proclaimed star,” he says. “They had bragged to the world that they had come to Bollywood to introduce a culture of honesty and transparency. But the blunt truth is that they have poisoned it further with their clever lies. None of these new Gods are making money. They are kidding themselves and the world. And, to conceal those lies that they are selling, they need a star on their side.”

    “”The three big star-studded hits are ’suspect hits’,” says an insider, “because either the producers or the distributors/sub-distributors lost money.”

    Haha! rks thanks for the link.
18. 

    Comment by A C H I L L E S on 13 October 2008:

    So we are back to Sarkar Raj? That movie hardly deserves a mention in this discussion … even from production cost or trending or whatever - its no more than a below average.

    There has been many cases like SR before, the recent ones that comes to my mind are the likes of Omkara, AN, TPTM, etc … these are no way flops from production cost theory … but labeled as Flops by one and all.

    Anyways, coming back to the main debate, even if we are to consider production cost for our analysis, whats the legitimate source of reliable production cost? We hear a wide range of numbers when it comes to production cost. Drona was quoted as 45 crore budget by Goldie? Reports vary from 50-55-60 crores to 90 crores (by yahoo!).

    Ashutosh (director) said the budget of JA was 37 crore during pre-release promotion, Ronnie (producer/distributor) quoted 42-43 crores (did he include promotion and print costs?) … while a section of the media reported a figure of 50 crores with publicity and print costs. And a certain member here repeatedly quoted the budget was way over 50 crores itself (according to his inside sources).

    This is not just the case with biggies … even the reported budget of our low-budget films varies a wide range. Whose word are we going to take into account? And how much reliable will such an analysis be?

    Also how do you define production cost? Will the promotion/publicity and print costs be disregarded (again these figures vary from movie to movie depending on the publicity campaign and wide/small release strategy).

    When there is hardly any accountability for any numbers (production costs, distribution costs, sub-distribution costs and BO collections) in BW, I wonder if ANY proposed model can be foolproof.
19. 

    Comment by A C H I L L E S on 13 October 2008:

    Its no esoteric knowledge that for SIK, Race, Sarkar Raj - either the producers or the distributors/sub-distributors have lost money.

    But TOI quoting ‘an inside source’ hardly gives any credibility to the story. Why such hidden reporting? Give us the facts/figures that define why they are suspect hits? Give us the source thats being quoted? Its the lack of transparency not only from BW but also the media in large that dissolves any credibility to what they throw at the public.
20. 

    Comment by jayshah on 13 October 2008:

    Ach -

    I’ve never supported this stuff, in fact its documentated throughout NG archives how I have absolutely opposed anything to do with distributors or what not. It is a faulty system and doesn’t make sense at all. I’ve been told “this is the way India works” - well, quite clearly from the article, its the wrong way to work because it is mis-leading and bordering on propoganda calling a film a hit, that actually factually under the terms of trade is not.

    Not much to add from me except there are more people today questioning the system on NG then there were when I arrived. Goes to show that there have been no improvements, if anything the more and more acute people get about the box office, the more and more they will realise how ludicrous it is.
21. 

    Comment by sv on 13 October 2008:

    I agree with you jay.The best way is to judge is by budget of the film.The distribution cost is only for the box office.If the film is oversold then it might incur losses.
    Race with a budget of 25 croes and grossed 63 crores,.
    Sarkar raj with a budget of 22 crores grossed 36 crores.
    So race is a bigger hit.Sarkar raj is semi hit.
22. 

    Comment by A C H I L L E S on 13 October 2008:

    “The best way is to judge is by budget of the film”

    LOL … so that you can throw around budget figures according to your whims and fancies Sunil/SV?

    This is the problem with the budget vs revenue theory in bollywood. There is no accurate source for the budget in the first place. A variety of sources will quote various figures so that anyone can pick any figure that suits his cause.

    A pro-Bachchan site like IBOS had quoted a 28 crore budget figure for SR in one of its numerous defense on the movie.

    Jay - I know your stance on distribution cost. All I wanted to say is the production cost theory is equally ambiguous and does not help in any way. As for the trending theory, alas that also is hardly the complete picture.
23. 

    Comment by jayshah on 13 October 2008:

    Ach my point on production vs distribution was nothing to do with the credibility of the data. I was just saying that I prefer production cost as the parameter over distribution cost. Everyone knows both sets of data are equally ambiguous. All I am saying is I would have a preference for one over the other because of how I see the value chain.
24. 

    Comment by rockstar on 13 October 2008:

    “Reliance invested about Rs 29 crore in procuring the recently released Rock On.”

    agree but they got the huge chunk here with musical fairs

    rock on was a huge in music circuit and debuted at number 13 on international chart

    well as the article say money is not a big deal for co-operates well here it is more to do with prestige and avoiding tax well with declaring profit as dividend they can easily avoid that
25. 

    Comment by abhishekr on 13 October 2008:

    Agree Jay,primarily distributors and sub-distributors though important in the functioning of business are a sort of middlemen who are playing their game according to what they percieve to be a profitable venture.In the end one should go by the cost of movie(production+promotion+print) against its theatrical revenue for classification.
26. 

    Comment by rockstar on 13 October 2008:

    ” A matter (BO) which should rightly be of concern to the exhibitors, sub exhibitors/distributors has become a national pre occupation ”

    hmm kaveeta ji but again its the producer here which makes the movie and takes the risk well along with director the movie is his vision isn’t it

    what i can see bollywood is slowly following the hollywood model with more prominence on producers rather than on distribution aspect some of them are counting out sub-distributors and are themselves distributing the moviethat is the case with utv , yashraj now even ashtvinayak and eros are slowly doing that
27. 

    Comment by rockstar on 13 October 2008:

    “distributors and sub-distributors though important in the functioning of business are a sort of middlemen who are playing their game according to what they percieve to be a profitable venture.In the end one should go by the cost of movie(production+promotion+print) against its theatrical revenue for classification.”

    agree on most counts here hollywood does that and ya they indeed are middlemen anyway today’s scenario is not like of 70,80″s and 90’s when indian box office are synonymous with distribution aspects today the picture is changing now in most of the cases its the producers who themselves are distributing the movie when they are confident about their product
28. 

    Comment by neelu on 13 October 2008:

    Does everyone in the foodchain have to make money on the project? I would say that in any other business all intermediaries that handle the product add on their own costs and in the end the consumer pays that total price. What are the distributors buying if not the product?

    Having said this - it seems that the producers are immune to losses if they can create sufficient hype for their product. I also wonder how much of this is really transparent for tax purposes and if there are under the table deals so that the distributor can take a loss from the high price but still share the “profit” under the table with the producer, in the end the only dupe might be the Revenue service! Now if we also start giving hit tags to such films based on their production+promotion+print costs, then even the producers and actors are immune from a tag of “failure”. I think I may have found the perfect business model, hurray for all but the Government revenue stream.
29. 

    Comment by rockstar on 13 October 2008:

    “But what would Qualify for a universal success? Imo definitely not an ‘on table’ profit for the producer since this may be based entirely on star power by virtue of either his recent hit or then the expected rage it may creat”

    well again the trending comes into picture thats the general criteria for likeablity index of a movie isn’t it just look around and see that is the case with movies like jtyjn, ja and rock on they trended really well compared to a SIK
30. 

    Comment by cticize on 13 October 2008:

    As mentioned, there is literally no rationale to sale these films at astronomical, gastronomical, bustonomical prices. When the market isn’t grown enough to accommodate the price. There should be some proper analysis about the market size and the max limit to which a film can go.
31. 

    Comment by Kaveetaa Kaul on 14 October 2008:

    Julie

    Re:”One question that has always puzzled me which is something that one of you may be able to address is the concept of producers profit. Are most producers into earning bulk of their profit upfront (table profit) or is it some quota i.e. 60% based on distribution rights and 40% post release (The latter percentile is just an example)? For example why would the distributor be willing to pay upfront 1.5x times the budget of a film that is dicey in theme or even BO prospect wise viz something which is comapratively safer.”

    For films considered risque by the distributor the films are then sold on ‘commission’ which essentially means that the distributor agrees to bear costs of prints+publicity+ theatre hire and whatever else is necessary to ascertain release. Only after he has covered his price is the profit then shared with the producer. The exact modalities differ with each transaction but roughly speaking this is how the producer is made to share risk.

    Surely you will have deduced that multi starrers face no such quandary. The tables are reversed then with the Producer calling the shots, irrespective of the quality of his product. Some recent top producers have now also turned distributors in belief that their product guarantees huge profits and so are unwilling to slice off a share to a third party. Some laugh their way to the bank, while others have failed as well. I think Ajay Devgan may have faced problems of the kind with U me aur Hum..not sure .

    Jay

    Re: “The only one that makes sense to base a trade classification on for me is the production cost. This is the ACTUAL risk attached to any project. The producer has placed a 50Cr risk on Drona, by paying all people associated with the film, the cost to produce etc this sum of money. This is the truest investment in the project. It tells me, this film’s pure value is 50Cr.”

    I disagree. Lets look at it this way. Would you consider the mere ’sold’ tag attached to a film, after the producer palmed it off to the distributor as a successful film? Obviously not. Since the product is meant for mass consumption and only when the target audience endorses it will the film be rightfully termed a success.

    Now the ‘cost factor’. Since the film at the stage of being taken over by the distributor is yet incomplete per se, the costs too are incomplete. Imo the distributors cost which includes producers cost+ profit + print+ publicity is the FINAL cost, all inclusive. Therefore irrespective of the agenda of the Producer, as in how he has managed to project costs, the distributors purchase value mirrors a complete figure. Even if we , for the purpose of discussion leave the exhibitors alone, distributor cost should be the premise of profit evaluation or the base scale.

    Ach “Anyways, coming back to the main debate, even if we are to consider production cost for our analysis, whats the legitimate source of reliable production cost?”

    Agree..absolutely.

    Rockstar Re: “hmm kaveeta ji but again its the producer here which makes the movie and takes the risk well along with director the movie is his vision isn’t it”

    perhaps you misunderstand me…I was ambiguous maybe. when I wrote ‘national pre occupation’ I meant the average cinegoer can safely afford to live a blinkered existence as far as the whole anomaly of BO figures go and focus entirely on watching the film as a defined unit, leaving the number crunching for the paid experts.

    Yes..trending seems to be critical criteria in fixing SP of films. No wonder a hit or a flop in Bo terms has a wider scope and ramifications than most of us care to believe.

    Re ““Reliance invested about Rs 29 crore in procuring the recently released Rock On.”

    agree but they got the huge chunk here with musical fairs.

    But isnt music a separate territory?
32. 

    Comment by Kaveetaa Kaul on 14 October 2008:

    RKS..for sure is a man of few words. He often, ingenuously slips in a link which fits in so well with the ongoing discussion. Its like speaking a thousand words without having uttered a single, technically. Endearing
33. 

    Comment by rks on 14 October 2008:

    Kaveeta: Thank You
34. 

    Comment by rks on 14 October 2008:

    Bollywood feels the pressure of global financial crisis
35. 

    Comment by rks on 14 October 2008:

    Shree Ashtavinayak buys Yuvvraaj for Rs 250 million
36. 

    Comment by Kanwal on 14 October 2008:

    25 cr for yuvraaj(india only,including print/publicity) is decent.

    45 cr nett in india will make is break even for ashtavinayak.

    Ghai would have wanted to sell the movie conservatively after he made profit on yaadien by selling it for a huge price(totally unethical on his part).

Post a Response

You must be logged in to post a comment.