Oh the irony

oh the irony

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=RUjPz7BKjlM
youtube.com/watch?v=C8D_o8bOeOc
washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/24/adam-sandler-is-awful-and-its-all-our-fault/
youtube.com/watch?v=EoTEFOPwH9s
cinemablend.com/new/Adam-Sandler-Admits-He-Chooses-Projects-Based-Where-He-Like-Vacation-43156.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

everything with nic cage over the past 15 years

That film was in development hell for 6 years because of studio bullshit. It doesn't surprise me it wasn't legally financed

Every single Steven Seagal kino

youtube.com/watch?v=RUjPz7BKjlM

Im convinced every Mike Bay film from the late 2000's till now is.

doesn't make it less kino though.

>tfw i accidentally quoted the article word for word without even reading it

damn i'm good

Universal Soldier

what the fuck is money laundering any who. So you have legally acquired money and you hide it in a legitimate business ? and people think that works because ....?

All of them.
/thread

pottery

Every Adam Sandler movie.

>the Oscar-nominated 2013 flick
>flick

Every single one by Uwe Boll.

...

Harvey Weinstein is pure you take that back

well you're supposed to wash it through multiple businesses.

>illegally aquire money
>how do i put this in my bank account without the >IRS finding out
>pretend to raise the price of something intangible (i.e. a service) so govt can't hit you with supply numbers and shit
>keep doing this until you've laundered all your money

make sense considering he got into a hassle were the mob took him for not accepting one of their roles

This, 70% of his films are mob money laundering schemes

money laundry obviously involves not legally acquired money you ponce.

THIS THIS THIS THIS, only thing i'm happy about is it brought back ecto cooler, that's it.

films are the dumbest ways to do this though it's a gamble more than anything

Grownups 2, Jack & Jill, etc etc.

>What other films have you suspected to have been vessels for money laundering?
Most films that aren't indie passion-projects are fronts for money-laundering
The most obvious one is the Room, but even films episode 7 - you expect me to believe that cost $250m? There are like 4 environments and a shit load of cgi. Refuse to believe they couldn't have cut $100m easily

The Wolf Of Wall Street thing has been known since before the film even went into production.

>money laundering

Pretty much everything put out by Millenium Films.

Pretty much everything put out by MGM films from 1990-93.

Not directly money laundering, but half of the shit released by Hollywood in the 80's and early 90's that was financed by German money (see Die Hard) and pretty much everything German up until the 2000's.

Everything in Australia from the late 70's to the 90's was done under the same scams, which often had dirty money involved.

Wouldn't they have to make money to be a money laundering scheme?

I meant illegally you fucking maroon 5 loving queer

how is it a gamble?
you have a bunch of money already. the point of laundering it is to bring it into your bank account by pretending to have earened it with like consulting fees or acting lessons or something for the movie

The fine-art world is literally the word's largest money-laundering market that can't easily be touched

Yeah, racketeering, pimping whores etc

well that's not what you typed you silly goose

meant for

CGI is more expensive than youd think. My roommate is a entry level coder in CGI business and makes BANK

WEW

No the common practice is to bloat the budget in the books and have the money go into a 'friend of ours' account who looks like he's charging you for a service.

>People think that works

Because it does.

This isn't really "money laundering" precisely in the film business. In the case of Wolf it's basically just financing movies with illegally obtained money.

A good scam in Australia and Germany was to utilize the tax incentives scheme;

>Earn 5 million one year

>You are guaranteed a 100% tax return on local film investment

>Instead of paying 2.5 million in tax, instead put that 2.5 million into a movie

>That 2.5 million can't be taxed

>But...damn...You have now lost the 2.5 million anyway, right? And if by some miracle your film is a success, you have to pay a tax on those profits anyway?

>Well, you don't have to pay anything if the film is a flop. So make sure it's a stinker. Make sure it's fucking awful. Furthermore, set up a shell company and charge "fees" for distributing the film, fee's so large the shell company can never turn a profit.

>Furthermore, assign yourself as executive producer. You can then charge yourself a million bucks for the service.

There are also cases of people buying "props" like ferrari's or private jets or holiday homes.

One of the way's to launder money through film production is to shoot in Bulgaria (hello SyFy), and have some Israeli dump his illegal money in a bank. The bank then "finances" the film with a "loan" (which is just the amount you have dumped into their bank), and then you charge yourself a producers fee etc etc.

Pic related probably knows a lot about it.

No no no
Here's how it works
>be drug cartel or mobsters or whatever
>clear over $50m a year selling drugs and racketeering
>pay 0 tax
>need to put it in your bank
>a. spend like $2m making a shitty Seagal film and then mark it down as costing $15m, and then pay that extra money into your bank account as consulting and producing fees, getting a tax rebate if you make it in a shitty eastern-eurpoean country
>b. funnel it through a business and have to pay like 20% or whatever tax on it

There are 'safer' ways to launder money, but films are almost always profitable as long as you keep the costs down. So even if they lose money on paper, the people funding them are probably still getting rich off them

What makes everyone ITT so confident that films have so much money laundering?

The Producers.

CGI is quite expensive
But Deadpool cost like $45m and basically the entire film was cgi
youtube.com/watch?v=C8D_o8bOeOc

Nope. Usually helps if they don't make money, to avoid taxation.

Basically it's the reason you see a movie like Dungeon Siege (not that I'm implying Uwe Boll is crooked) that has a budget of 60 million dollars, yet looks like it cost 5 million dollars.

Because a "producer" or fuck, even some guy listed as "craft services" is getting paid 20 million bucks after he put 30 million into the production budget.

My uncle works for the IRS.

It's also really bad and cheap CGI.

Like anything, it costs more as the quality goes up.

Unless you work for Sony.

I don't believe they do anymore. It was hugely popular back in the 80's and 90's.

A lot of things have changed since then.

You don't have the sort of massive independent film production companies around anymore like you did then either, really. No indies at the moment are putting more into budgets than major studios right now, for instance.

You speak as if Deadpool's CGI is cutting edge. It looks like utter shit and I'm not surprised since it's only 45mil.

Leo is truly the most method actor.

>look at the quality of films coming out of hollywood compared to their alleged budget
>look at the quality of indie films that aren't 'hollywood' compared to their budget

I remember reading an article about all the money weed dispensaries in colorado are making so much money that they can't put in the banks because the money is illegal on the federal level which means they have to launder legally acquired money.

because Hollywood is just that above the law they would do that shit.

Your answer.

>implying either of you would've been able to guess how much was cgi without watching that video

>>look at the quality of indie films that aren't 'hollywood' compared to their budget
huh? im stupid and dont understand

No you're fucking retarded.

Movies lose so much fucking money that I don't understand how it would make sense otherwise. There has to be something going on so that people are allowed to just put out total flops and it's not a big deal at all.

Beasts of No Nation, Only God Forgives, The Neon Demon - all cost between $4m and $6m
Your average Segal flick costs more than $10m

i know... he literally replied to me
also thats pretty bad case of heresay

Are you talking about Deadpool?

It's full of awful SyFy tier CGI.

That's what happens when you have a budget 100 mil short of what most of these films spend.

It's a good thing too, because they focused on things like character, jokes and storytelling instead and it paid off hugely and demonstrated that audiences don't really give a fuck if your superhero films contain photo realistic CGI, if the actual material is entertaining.

exactly. I know this isn't Sup Forums related but look at MGSV, 80 mil on the game alone and that is not counting the dev work on the fox engine. You know there was some Yakuza money filtered in there somewhere.

You make sure youre getting paid below the line so you get your money back "legally".

Most of the time though you're going to lose some money (points on the dollar) but thats considered payment to the third party.

Hello tiddeR

Are you fucking blind? Deadpool's CGI is obvious as fuck.

District 9's CGI was aces though, you can see where the money went there.

Studios can also write of a loss on their taxes.

Deadpool had a low budget though. Hell they even made fun of this in the movie.

When is that uber kike gonna get busted?

The director knew how to shoot one because he's been doing CGI since he graduated film school. Check out his short films. They're pretty cool.

>Sources told The Post that Low “lavished money” on DiCaprio. “He would give him half a million bucks to come to a Vegas party on a private plane and all the chips on the house. They also asked Scorsese, who turned them down,” the source said.
#howtheotherhalflive

Well, if you're Warner Brothers it's okay to have a few flops, because Batman Vs. Superman will clear a billion dollars easily and cover the losses.

If you're Sony, you can put out a few flops, because Ghostbusters will do about 900 million and cover your losses.

Oh wait.

lol.

George Lucas was right - It's all going to collapse.

But seriously, that's how it works. The tent poles cover the losses, and they have such a wide slate that they can eat a few losses and have a few wins and they even out.

Back in the 90's is when everything came crashing down for a major part of the industry, because as budgets started hitting the 100 mil range, independent companies like Carolco or Orion found out that it only takes one Cuthroat Island to wipe out your reserves, when that's the one film you can afford to make that year.

Are you kidding, the name alone prints money.

No one is arguing that, user. Senpai up there thinks CGI isn't expensive. We're saying it goes up the better it looks.

He said Force Awakens didn't need to cost that much which I kinda agree but not on the actual production side of things. I think it cost a lot because of the actor's wage.

>tfw the Yakuza in the 80's economic boom convinced a bank to lend nearly 2 billion U.S. dollars to a mountain dwelling psychic to invest in the stock market (in a huge coincidence many of the companies his psychic visions compelled him to invest in happened to be ones that were being looted by the Yakuza).

Both the Yakuza and Chinese Triads are still heavily involved in film production to this day.

Who the fuck even goes to his films anymore, I don't get it. He is just awful.

Force Awakens wasn't that expensive. When you consider how much money gets burned on absolute shit like Tarzan, compared to a sure fire money printer like Star Wars.

Harrison Ford got paid something like 50 million alone though. That's like a quarter of the budget wiped out.

Is there any money in this industry anymore ?

Evan Almighty, Catwoman, Waterworld, Te Postman, Jack and Jill

>goes

He makes films exclusively for Netflix now.

Going from your bed to your couch isn't much of a stretch.

>Netflix spent 60 million dollars on The Ridiculous Six

washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/24/adam-sandler-is-awful-and-its-all-our-fault/

Is Tarzan that bad? I haven't seen it but want to because I want Tarzan's body. No homo.

Netflix is a worldwide service so they got that shit back in over a month.

But the feds don't care when old Hillary funds her campaigns with stolen money.

>$10m on acquiring exclusive distribution rights
>$10m on Sandler's acting fee
>$5m on Sandler's writing and producing fee
>$5m on everyone else's acting fee
>$10m on keeping the cast happy (lunches, weekend relaxation events)
>$10m on travel expenses
>$5m on crew fees
>$5m on unaccounted-for production fees

Yeah, checks out

This guy is one of my favorite Hollywood kikes (not actually a kike).

He started life doing "things" for the Mafia in Sicily.

Then he got a job assisting the Vatican in tidying up their finances.

Then he showed up in Hollywood with a couple billion dollars and went straight to everyone's favorite Israeli Businessmen Golan & Globus, and purchased the completely failed Canon Pictures from them and then bought MGM and merged the two companies to form a super studio that produced essentially no movies, but did hire lots of yachts and throw awesome parties in Cannes, and had a huge surplus of extremely attractive secretaries that would fuck talent that came over for meetings.

He even had the incredibly intelligent foresight to sack the entire accounting and financial department of MGM and replace them with his 21 year old daughter.

Of course, Hollywood slandered his good name when they made this thinly veiled account of his life and made all sorts of devious and libelous implications about his business practices;

youtube.com/watch?v=EoTEFOPwH9s

cinemablend.com/new/Adam-Sandler-Admits-He-Chooses-Projects-Based-Where-He-Like-Vacation-43156.html

>$10m on Sandler's acting fee

Isn't his fee 20 million?

>starts post saying guy worked for the mafia
>ends post saying his "good name was slandered"

Precisely.

He said it himself at one stage;

If what he did for the Mafia was really wrong, would the Vatican of all places have hired him to consult on financial matters?

Of course not.

“I’m not trying to vilify Adam Sandler,” McGowan later told E!,“Although someone did tell me that when he did his Netflix deal, he said, ‘I signed with Netflix because it rhymes with Wet Chicks.’ I mean, what? What in the fuck is going on? No!”

as if a manlet could be tony soprano with a punch

Adam Sandler may well be one of the biggest frauds, sell outs and indeed con artists in cinema today. Take the film Jack and Jill for example, the 2011 "comedy" that we've all hopefully forgotten about. The film legitimately looks like a fake movie, virtually everything in the film looks cheap, it's extremely badly acted and the standard of the "comedy" is atrocious and in some ways extremely offensive and vulgar. This film and all of his films in general are filled with whorish and blatant product placement, fart jokes, genital/crotch related comedy (that does not include genital injury), also genital injury, people falling down, cameos by Adam Sandlers friends and other celebrities, animal cruelty, jokes at the expense of physical abnormality or ethnicity (jokes at the expense of those who are different basically) and of course "scenes" or forced sentimentality to trick people into thinking his films have heart. If you watch Jack and Jill (please don't), you'll notice that all of these "jokes" appear en mass with the exception of genital injury of which there are no instances of that in the film. People on reddit tend to criticize the Big Bang Theory for being a dumb comedy, but Adam Sandler films are many times dumber and in a lot of ways actually offensive.
Now it's only fair that I address my claim of Adam Sandler being a conman. All of his new films are about getting them made as quickly and cheaply as possible, they aren't about work or art they are painfully lazy. With that being said a film, such as Jack and Jill, that looks horribly cheap and is disgustingly lazy should cost far less than Jack and Jill did. The budget for Jack and Jill (2011) was 79 million dollars
So where did all that money go?

Adam Sandler is also a comedian. Maybe this turbocunt forgot that.

>>Sources told The Post that Low “lavished money” on DiCaprio. “He would give him half a million bucks to come to a Vegas party on a private plane and all the chips on the house. They also asked Scorsese, who turned them down,” the source said.
this is well exposed in entourage

He had to spend that hijacking money on something.

Fug

The "large amount of money" was $200,000
That wouldn't even cover the cost of the Room's advertising billboard
Also, everyone who knew him says Tommy Wiseau was somewhat involved in real-estate before the Room with rumours he came from an eastern european country before that

He would've had to invest that 200, 000 in property without being picked up for money-laundering, and then made a massive profit somehow

The whole syfy channel is just a money laundering scheme for the mexican cartels

Ay dios mio, are you filthy gringos implying that Chupacabra vs. The Alamo (tm) isn't a heartfelt masterpiece of cinema?

Does anyone have the art dealer post?

>xkcd
suicide is your best bet

I feel vindicated

told my friend Scorsese was a hack when he wanted to see this shit movie

>everyone's favorite Israeli Businessmen Golan & Globus
The world needs more jews like them. I'd gladly bow to the hebrew conspiracy if it means i get over the top 2 or another death wish.