TLK Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 (edited) No one in their right mind would've funded The Master for 20 million, let alone 35 million. She literally doubled the offer that Fox Searchlight offered PTA (17 million). She is the love of my life. She is hurting the business if this is true. FoxS's offer was more realistic and consistent with the market price but she inflated the market price because she has billions lying around and nothing to do with that kind of money. I am sorry but artificially inflating the market and creating a bubble is a bad idea for any industry. What if she gets bored in couple of years and decides to put her billions in ,say, horse-racing? What will happen to the bubble that she has created ? Most financiers are in the business to make money and not to play God. People who try to play God are bad news for any industry. Edited March 20, 2013 by TLK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Scottb Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 (edited) For those who don't know. Her father is Larry Ellison the co-founder and CEO of Oracle Corporation. He is currently the 5th richest man in the world and 3rd richest American with a net worth in excess of $43 billion. http://www.forbes.com/profile/larry-ellison/ Edited March 20, 2013 by scottb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Scottb Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 She is hurting the business if this is true. FoxS's offer was more realistic and consistent with the market price but she inflated the market price because she has billions lying around and nothing to do with that kind of money. I am sorry but artificially inflating the market and creating a bubble is a bad idea for any industry. What if she gets bored in couple of years and decides to put her billions in ,say, horse-racing? What will happen to the bubble that she has created ? Most financiers are in the business to make money and not to play God. People who try to play God are bad news for any industry. The problem is this is not her primary source of income, this is just a hobby for her. Sort of like billionaires who buy pro sports franchises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopher Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 (edited) So what? If she leaves the business (that's a big 'if' considering how much she's sunk into Annapurna) then PTA will have to make a cheaper movie somewhere else. But because she was there in the first place, he got to make and market The Master the way he wanted to do it. Word is still out on if her input brings any real commercial success- ZDT was a hit, Master and Killing Them Softly weren't- but if she wants to spend her riches giving auteurs millions to play with, then I won't consider that a threat by any means. Edited March 20, 2013 by Gopher 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLK Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 So what? If she leaves the business (that's a big 'if' considering how much she's sunk into Annapurna) then PTA will have to make a cheaper movie somewhere else. But because she was there in the first place, he got to make and market The Master the way he wanted to do it. Word is still out on if her input brings any real commercial success- ZDT was a hit, Master and Killing Them Softly weren't- but if she wants to spend her riches giving auteurs millions to play with, then I won't consider that a threat by any means. This isn't a good business model. People will start getting out of the Independent movie business if they can't afford to compete with someone who isn't interested in actually running a honest business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopher Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 (edited) If you're in the independent business then you probably care more about the movie you want to make itself than a woman who is funding a small handful of movies a year. Independent films will continue to be made. Annapurna isn't a threat in the slightest. Edited March 20, 2013 by Gopher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLK Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 (edited) If you're in the independent business then you probably care more about the movie you want to make itself than a woman who is funding a small handful of movies a year. Independent films will continue to be made. Annapurna isn't a threat in the slightest. I am not in the business but it is a small industry and like any other business if one party is artificially inflating prices then every other competitor will suffer. We've already seen the adverse consequences of big budget tentpoles on small and mid-budget movies, She is going to make half a dozen movies every year but her actions will result in jacking up the production cost for other 100+ independent movies that are made every year. Edited March 20, 2013 by TLK 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Old Tele Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 I don't think that's true at all -- in fact, I think she's one of the best things to happen to Hollywood in awhile. The films she backs are exactly the sort the studios (who own most of the mini-majors) don't make anymore -- mid-budget films for adults; and it's not like every indie financier follows the same business model. How exactly is she going to drive up the price for everyone else? 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonytr87 Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 ^Agreed. Her detractors don't know what they're talking about. All she's doing is putting more money towards films that otherwise would've struggled to gain financing. She's a godsend in my opinion. AND, regardless of box office, they've all been good/great movies. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatebox Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 There are some set pics of Bale on the IMDB boards - he's looking quite bloated and must have put on a fair amount of weight for the role. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Nevada Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 No lover of great films should complain about Annapurna or Megan Ellison. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acsc1312 Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Yeah, GTFO with this nonsense about her ruining the business. You should be complaining about studios giving crap films $250m budgets (John carter and jack, anyone?) her giving someone $35m is nothing compare to that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Futurist Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 It s still nepotism at its worst. Go daughter, go play with your billions and the most talented filmmakers and actors in the world, you earned it pumpkin ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acsc1312 Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 (edited) It s still nepotism at its worst.Go daughter, go play with your billions and the most talented filmmakers and actors in the world, you earned it pumpkin !Who gives a crap? It's not like she's blowing it on booze and drugs with these people. She's funding films and investing her money. And nepotism would be her dad hiring her at her company, not simply giving her money. Edited March 20, 2013 by acsc1312 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Futurist Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 (edited) I dunno, thousands of aspiring film producers who would die to have 0,0001 % of what she s got to get a start in the film industry. How many 25 year old producers can spend 80 million on two films ? None. Remember, sometimes, a producer has very little or no money invested in a film, producers generally find financing with banks. Megan is financing ALL the production costs and yes, she is disturbing the economy of the Indie world, whether you like it or not. She is so aware of her entitlement that she s pulling the intellectual card by putting quotes of philosophers and writers on Twitter to sound educated/witty/smart and she is paying a PR team to NOT be in the limelight. And the mere idea that a 60 year old brilliant filmmaker has to beg to a 25 year old daddy's little girl is wrong. But I understand some of you don't care about all this since she s financing your precious auteur/indie filmmakers that bad big studios don't care about so she gets a free pass. Cool. Entitlement : YAY ! . Edited March 20, 2013 by The Futurist 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Nevada Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 But I understand some of you don't care about all this since she s financing your precious auteur/indie filmmakers that bad big studios don't care about so she gets a free pass. Cool. It is pretty cool, actually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Gittes Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Yup. Apparently since she just so happens to be a film lover with billions of dollars at her disposal, she shouldn't use them to fund films because she's the only one and it would be unfair to those who aren't as rich. Give me a fucking break. Would it sit better with you if she knew she had a chance to help out great filmmakers the way she's doing but instead decided to blow her fortune on booze, drugs, dresses, jewelry, cars, horses etc.? Instead, she invests in intelligent, interesting, ambitious filmmaking, making cinephiles all around the world happy. But no, let's complain because we can't get over the fact she's daddy's rich girl. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Nevada Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Unless the money comes from something really shady I dont give a rats ass about the producer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Nevada Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 And come on, just look at the fucking movies she's done! The Master and Zero Dark Thirty! I cant wait to see what her company puts out next. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Old Tele Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 (edited) I really don't get the negativity. It's not like she's financing shameless vanity projects. And if she wasn't around, filmmakers would STILL be asking, hat in hand, for money from other producers. Why does her age or how she got her money matter? Edited March 20, 2013 by Telemachos 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
