Skavau@piefed.socialM to Television@piefed.socialEnglish · 2 days agoJimmy Kimmel Blasts Reports of Stephen Colbert’s ‘Late Show’ Losing $40 Million for CBS: ‘Not a Snowball’s Chance in Hell That’s Accurate’variety.comexternal-linkmessage-square29linkfedilinkarrow-up1323arrow-down14
arrow-up1319arrow-down1external-linkJimmy Kimmel Blasts Reports of Stephen Colbert’s ‘Late Show’ Losing $40 Million for CBS: ‘Not a Snowball’s Chance in Hell That’s Accurate’variety.comSkavau@piefed.socialM to Television@piefed.socialEnglish · 2 days agomessage-square29linkfedilink
minus-squareohulancutash@feddit.uklinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up10·2 days agoDoesnt quite work for broadcast TV where the income from advertising on a show is roughly known by observers, as is roughly the budget.
minus-squareCornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up4·2 days agoThey could still charge ridiculous fees for the studio, licensing the name or any number of different things.
minus-squareNollij@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·1 day agoA common one is the studio has to pay a sister company “distribution fees” or similar. These fees just happen to be the expected profit…
minus-squareohulancutash@feddit.uklinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·2 days agoThe Ed Sullivan Theatre is insanely expensive. If CBS could be shot of it they’d be happy.
minus-squareNollij@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6arrow-down1·2 days agoDoesn’t change the point I was making. If the producers want to make it look like it’s losing money, they absolutely can.
minus-squareAwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up2·2 days agoCounterpoint: LotR trilogy, where we know pretty much everything about the production and income (a lot of income), somehow mysteriously stays unprofitable to this day.
minus-squareturdburglar@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up1·2 days agoyeah, you’ve got this one wrong tho. both film and tv do some wackadoodle shit with the monies. i work in the industry and have both seen it and have been expected to participate in it. it’s straight up money fuckery that doesn’t make sense unless you have the waaaay zoomed out view.
Doesnt quite work for broadcast TV where the income from advertising on a show is roughly known by observers, as is roughly the budget.
They could still charge ridiculous fees for the studio, licensing the name or any number of different things.
A common one is the studio has to pay a sister company “distribution fees” or similar. These fees just happen to be the expected profit…
The Ed Sullivan Theatre is insanely expensive. If CBS could be shot of it they’d be happy.
Doesn’t change the point I was making. If the producers want to make it look like it’s losing money, they absolutely can.
Counterpoint: LotR trilogy, where we know pretty much everything about the production and income (a lot of income), somehow mysteriously stays unprofitable to this day.
yeah, you’ve got this one wrong tho. both film and tv do some wackadoodle shit with the monies.
i work in the industry and have both seen it and have been expected to participate in it.
it’s straight up money fuckery that doesn’t make sense unless you have the waaaay zoomed out view.