Quotes from Linkedin.com: Why film producers were shot down as contestants on the TV show ‘Shark Tank’

I’ve been getting re-educated on what it takes to make a movie in the 21st Century, and came across this guy who has the only accredited IR firm in Vegas, which I think is pretty cool.
The logical follow up question is, I’ve been developing a package of films for the last ten plus years, with what I would consider to be no actual development money, however, my life can be documented, therefore the question is, should I give up control of more than half of my company? It’s a scary thought to be sure. Please leave a comment after you read the article, and the comments at the site. PS, most of them are spam, except for mine. There probably should be an asterisk somewhere…. 😉

Finance topics, trends, & specific term sheets

>(see * at bottom when finished reading guest’s post)<

Hedge Private Equity and Private Film Financing http://www.linkedin.com/

Quote from Dave Gregory, film producer

“Just watched that segment of SHARK TANK online. I don’t take anything I see on reality shows too seriously, but I do like the “cast” of investors on that show.

Mark Cuban was instantly out because the filmmakers only offered 30 or 35% of the equity for 100% of the funding. That’s ridiculous…and insulting to any investor, IMO.

At first I thought they were hawking a documentary but then, once they talked about obtaining cast and writing a script, I realized it was a narrative feature based on the subject and they hadn’t even gotten through development. And really, a teaser with nothing but annoying GC title graphics doesn’t tell me a damned thing.

I would never approach an investor until (a) full development, (b) a breakdown…

View original post 219 more words


One thought on “Quotes from Linkedin.com: Why film producers were shot down as contestants on the TV show ‘Shark Tank’

  1. See last paragraph on post: Giving up 51% of a company in exchange for 100% of some 30 different types of film capital is not a choice for borrowers to make. If it is that important to the borrower, than it’s not logical to gravitate towards some 24 kinds of equity capital. Especially when there are cheaper and more expedient alternatives.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.