Brian May: Queen hasn't 'earned a penny' from film 'Bohemian Rhapsody'

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 1222 times.


SoCalWJS

 :shake:

Hollywood finances astound me all the time. This is no exception.

wushuliu

My guess is they played no role in the production. They had casting approval I think but not much else. Which is bizarre. On the flip side they are surely making money from increased music sales.

Still - they need better lawyers. Getting nothing while Bryan Singer gets both millions and screen credit for a movie his pedo sketchy self couldn't finish is ridiculous.

Folsom

Who owns the songs?

wushuliu


Folsom

Well, then Queen doesn't have the rights to make anything on it, do they?

wushuliu

Well, then Queen doesn't have the rights to make anything on it, do they?

That doesn't have anything to do with the movie production. Presumably they receive royalties from Sony, who purchased EMIs catalog in recent years. They have certain rights when it comes to the songs/albums. But I don't think they were prepared for the movie industry's notorious 'creative accounting'. This is why movies like Forrest Gump become legendary for *never making a profit*, and why star power is determined by one's ability to negotiate huge up-front salaries and *gross* profits, never *net* profits. Because somehow, magically, hit movies have a hard time showing they made any money.

Director Bryan Singer gets away with it because he's been making hits for a long time and knows the right people. He gets paid seven figures even if he abandons the set mysteriously for weeks without warning (which he did during Rhapsody AND X-MEN), gets replaced by another director, and despite being known for liking young... toys. That's the movie business for ya.

charmerci

Reminds me of the story of Neil Innes and the Rutles. He wrote most of the songs for the movie which sounded like the Beatles but obviously weren't their songs, yet after a lawsuit, they had to make them all co-written by McCartney and Lennon even though they had nothing to do with writing the songs!  :o


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rutles#Lawsuits

wushuliu

Reminds me of the story of Neil Innes and the Rutles. He wrote most of the songs for the movie which sounded like the Beatles but obviously weren't their songs, yet after a lawsuit, they had to make them all co-written by McCartney and Lennon even though they had nothing to do with writing the songs!  :o


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rutles#Lawsuits

Yep. Entertainment industry lawyers are no joke.

Mike B.

I doubt he needs it.  :D

mix4fix

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 2300
  • I reject your music, and substitute my own.
That doesn't have anything to do with the movie production. Presumably they receive royalties from Sony, who purchased EMIs catalog in recent years. They have certain rights when it comes to the songs/albums. But I don't think they were prepared for the movie industry's notorious 'creative accounting'. This is why movies like Forrest Gump become legendary for *never making a profit*, and why star power is determined by one's ability to negotiate huge up-front salaries and *gross* profits, never *net* profits. Because somehow, magically, hit movies have a hard time showing they made any money.

Director Bryan Singer gets away with it because he's been making hits for a long time and knows the right people. He gets paid seven figures even if he abandons the set mysteriously for weeks without warning (which he did during Rhapsody AND X-MEN), gets replaced by another director, and despite being known for liking young... toys. That's the movie business for ya.

And, Forest Gump gets played numerous times on TV. I wonder how much they get for that.