Posts: 5468
From: Nouméa, New Caledonia
Registered: Jun 2003
posted July 13, 2012 01:11 PM
This is not uncommon situation, and I just watched Tintin (Steven Spielberg), it was a cooperation between Paramount and Columbia.
Why there need 2 big companies/studios in making this movie? Is it about money or copy rights..or something else I don;t know?
Posts: 529
From: Charleston, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2005
posted July 13, 2012 04:07 PM
Usually its about $$$ to offset the cost of a production and to minimize the risk if it does not do well at the box office. Sometimes a studio has a option on a story or character(s) and rather than sell the rights to a rival studio they team up. Its similar to a company other than the original production studio licensing another company to distribute the film on DVD. This is nothing new because years ago independent producers struck deals with a studio for financing and distribution. Now the same things happen with the addition of a rival studio to the package deal. With the exorbitant costs of production now which includes ridiculous amounts of money paid to some actors, without these cooperative deals the films would never be produced at all.
-------------------- Movie Lovers Do It in the Dark
Posts: 1149
From: Washington DC
Registered: Oct 2006
posted July 13, 2012 05:29 PM
It's a bit like the international productions of the '60es where epics could be financed by, say, the US, Spain and Italy to spread the risk some.
Claus.
-------------------- "Why are there shots of deserts in a scene that's supposed to take place in Belgium during the winter?" (Review of 'Battle of the Bulge'.)