I’ve Discussed a few films here at Anarchonomicon… We Did a Podcast on the insane psychedelic Canadian History Film “The Twentieth Century”, I went almost 4 Hours on the crime in Micheal Mann’s “HEAT”, and I Adored the Re-Cut of CALIGULA… And I still get Comments on
Cue the original movie "The Producers". Was the intent that "Odyssey" was deliberately made to be so bad that it would be guaranteed to lose money, and thus cover for the embezzlement of the investors' funds? But what if "Odyssey" is so bad it becomes a cult classic -- and profitable. That may be when the fun really starts!
Wait, Hollywood studios screwing investors out of money via dubious deals and accounting?! Say it ain't so! Anyone investing in the production of movies is begging to have their money stolen. It's been like that for a long time, but the numbers are larger now.
most hollyweird movies get some sort of private funding, VC or PE or closed funds. My guess is that a a lot of the woke dreck is financed by dark money that way.
Eg, NGO gets funds from Gov (usaid etc) for DEI measures. NGO funnels that money to Harvard Graduate Smart Grifter Parasite Inc. fund as an „investment“. Money then is allocated into some one shot movie investment vehicle and instantly written off. The big movie companies then only foot part of the bill, if at all. They give their name for legitimacy and media coverage.
These people (film company ceos) are not stupid. They want guarantees that in case of negative returns they will not hold the bag.
No, your name you get to change. Not your pronouns.
Heaven help us all if we all have to start using our legal names/birth names. Or Start tracking down what cher and Prince and all the other clowns were called
"So Nolan is getting 15% off direct Revenue, (Not profits, Gross) and his wife another 5%) from the Odyssey, basically risk free, AFTER his 20 million up front."
It's not after his 20 million, the 20 million is an advance on that. Your AI even says this in the screenshot you provided.
This market indicates 350 million domestic is overwhelming likely. Inception a comparable Nolan film had ~35% of revenue domestic, which would put this market by analogy as estimating 1 billion dollars domestic and international at 95% likelihood. Which is where you estimate the film would start turning a profit. So it's overwhelmingly likely that the film will be profitable.
That certainly could be part of is, but I think the main reason they hired him is because he's directed a fair few genuine viral hits (both critical and normie) in an age of flops.
Comcast represents about 0.13% of the S&P so if you were to contribute $2,000 to the S&P via your 401k, you’d be investing $2.6 into Comcast, roughly 11% of a stock which entitles you to 15 cents of yearly dividends. The median American is transferring $2.75 into this company. This is not wealth by any chance for the individual. It’s 0.004% of the median yearly salary of $64k. 0.06% of yearly savings of $4,366. However, when 70 million Americans contribute, the wealth transfer looks like 192 million dollars (using middle-of-the-pack American worker’s data as a proxy). Around 0.19% of 2025 Comcast’s equity funded by 401k’s. This is 76% of the Odyssey’s net production costs. Bottom line, the pocket change of 70 million working-class Americans effectively writes the check for the most expensive lack of emotion or skill, dull-face Zendaya minutes.
Cue the original movie "The Producers". Was the intent that "Odyssey" was deliberately made to be so bad that it would be guaranteed to lose money, and thus cover for the embezzlement of the investors' funds? But what if "Odyssey" is so bad it becomes a cult classic -- and profitable. That may be when the fun really starts!
Who could have guessed this wasn't just about virtue signaling?
😄
Nolan is Beavis.
Wait, Hollywood studios screwing investors out of money via dubious deals and accounting?! Say it ain't so! Anyone investing in the production of movies is begging to have their money stolen. It's been like that for a long time, but the numbers are larger now.
most hollyweird movies get some sort of private funding, VC or PE or closed funds. My guess is that a a lot of the woke dreck is financed by dark money that way.
Eg, NGO gets funds from Gov (usaid etc) for DEI measures. NGO funnels that money to Harvard Graduate Smart Grifter Parasite Inc. fund as an „investment“. Money then is allocated into some one shot movie investment vehicle and instantly written off. The big movie companies then only foot part of the bill, if at all. They give their name for legitimacy and media coverage.
These people (film company ceos) are not stupid. They want guarantees that in case of negative returns they will not hold the bag.
Ellen Page. No one should ever refer to her as anything but.
No, your name you get to change. Not your pronouns.
Heaven help us all if we all have to start using our legal names/birth names. Or Start tracking down what cher and Prince and all the other clowns were called
"So Nolan is getting 15% off direct Revenue, (Not profits, Gross) and his wife another 5%) from the Odyssey, basically risk free, AFTER his 20 million up front."
It's not after his 20 million, the 20 million is an advance on that. Your AI even says this in the screenshot you provided.
Source: https://www.forbes.com.au/life/entertainment/how-christopher-nolan-became-the-biggest-movie-star-in-hollywood/
Relevant Polymarket: https://polymarket.com/event/the-odyssey-total-domestic-gross-by-august-31-20260716181154228
This market indicates 350 million domestic is overwhelming likely. Inception a comparable Nolan film had ~35% of revenue domestic, which would put this market by analogy as estimating 1 billion dollars domestic and international at 95% likelihood. Which is where you estimate the film would start turning a profit. So it's overwhelmingly likely that the film will be profitable.
Idk man maybe Nolan just is that guy.
Dino de Laurentis was doing similar financial legerdemain back in the '80s.
The Producers has its roots in real behavior.
your choice what to spend money on. movie tickets, steaks, guns.
That certainly could be part of is, but I think the main reason they hired him is because he's directed a fair few genuine viral hits (both critical and normie) in an age of flops.
Hollywood is *desperate* for wins at this point.
Comcast represents about 0.13% of the S&P so if you were to contribute $2,000 to the S&P via your 401k, you’d be investing $2.6 into Comcast, roughly 11% of a stock which entitles you to 15 cents of yearly dividends. The median American is transferring $2.75 into this company. This is not wealth by any chance for the individual. It’s 0.004% of the median yearly salary of $64k. 0.06% of yearly savings of $4,366. However, when 70 million Americans contribute, the wealth transfer looks like 192 million dollars (using middle-of-the-pack American worker’s data as a proxy). Around 0.19% of 2025 Comcast’s equity funded by 401k’s. This is 76% of the Odyssey’s net production costs. Bottom line, the pocket change of 70 million working-class Americans effectively writes the check for the most expensive lack of emotion or skill, dull-face Zendaya minutes.
Obviously this is not really how cashflows work but math works to get an idea of how the numbers look
Smart take