Alex Bogomolov | Unscripted
10 subscribers
18 photos
5 links
Films. Web3. AI.
Building things that shouldn't work - until they do.
Download Telegram
Soft Money - Part 5 of 5

The Full Picture for Investors

Let me summarize and put this together for anyone looking at film investment and trying to understand the actual risk structure.
The common assumption: you put in money, the production spends it, you hope the film earns it back. Speculative. Dependent entirely on market performance.

The reality when soft money is structured correctly:
- Government commits 35-50% of the production budget as a receivable before cameras roll.
- Bank lends against that receivable at 6-8%.

Private equity and pre-sales fill the remaining gap.

The investor isn't funding 100% of a speculative production. They're funding the portion that government programs and distributors don't cover.

The government doesn't take equity. They don't participate in upside. They pay a fixed incentive and exit. The equity investor keeps the full upside on the private capital portion.

That's a different structure than most people imagine when they hear "film investment."

The risk isn't zero.
The safe-biopic playbook just took another casualty.

"Michael" opened at 26% on Rotten Tomatoes and 39 on Metacritic.

The choice was obvious going in: show the contradictions or give audiences a clean legend for two hours. Producers picked clean. Reviews came back exactly how you'd expect - hollow, disconnected, every biopic cliché landing in the same frame. Jaafar Jackson's performance is the only thing holding it together.

Compare to "Bohemian Rhapsody": $900M on a $50M budget. They softened plenty, but they kept the conflict, the drugs, the HIV diagnosis, the band breaking apart. The audience walked out having met a human being.

Michael Jackson without the allegations, contradictions and weirdness is not Michael Jackson. It's a Madame Tussauds wax figure in motion.

I have skin in this. I'm developing projects where the pressure to sanitize the protagonist will be enormous. Investors, lawyers, estates, families - everyone wants "something beautiful." And every time, that instinct kills the film.

Ugly truth hits harder than a pretty lie.
🔥2
Park Chan-Wook is bringing "The Brigands of Rattlecreek" to Cannes with McConaughey, Butler, Pascal, and Tang Wei attached.

A Korean auteur doing a western with that cast is the most interesting market package of the year.

The territory math is the part worth looking at:
- McConaughey opens North American theatrical
- Pascal pulls every streamer to the table
- Butler hits the 25-to-35 demo
- Tang Wei makes Asia a primary pre-sale, not a side market

Six different sales pitches out of one package.

The ceiling effect matters more than the lineup. A deal of this size doesn't exist in isolation. Every other pre-sale at Cannes 2026 gets measured against whatever this lands at. One package sets the year's reference price.

Park Chan-Wook crossing into western is the kind of bet you only get to make once in a career. Whether the film hits or misses, the assembly itself rewires what buyers think is possible at this budget level.

That's the deal under the deal.
👏2
25.6M views on a film WB wrote off

"Coyote vs. Acme" just hit 25.6M trailer views in 24 hours. Warner Bros. shelved this film for a tax write-off. Ketchup Entertainment bought it and built the biggest independent family-film trailer launch on record.

This is what indie arbitrage looks like.

Studios shelve films for reasons that aren't always about quality. Tax math, regime change, distribution thesis flips, mid-tier theatrical pessimism. The film exists. The audience exists. The major just decided it doesn't fit the slate.

Then someone else picks it up and finds the audience the studio walked away from.

The numbers are clean:
- "Coyote vs. Acme" trailer: 25.6M views in 24 hours

Looney Tunes IP, family appetite, nostalgia layer. None of it changed when the asset moved between owners. Only the conviction did.

What a major calls dead inventory, an indie sometimes calls a release schedule.

That's the trade.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4tjvbLn8Xs
Next episode of the Warner Bros. + Paramount soap opera.

In 24 hours:

1. Paramount subscribers filed a class action in California federal court to block the deal.
2. Congressman Liccardo asked the FCC to deny the deal on foreign-ownership grounds.
3. Deadline reported Saudi capital pulling back after the "Desert Warrior" $150M flop.
The 2:1 ratio every indie producer dreams about. A24 keeps doing it.

A24's "Backrooms": tracking $20M opening weekend. Cost under $10 million to make.

The low-budget horror math works. Again.
A 2015 song just got +429% streams. Because of a Netflix movie.

Netflix released "Apex." The Chemical Brothers' "Go" (a 2015 song) got 429% more Spotify streams since the film dropped.

Most indie producers budget music sync as an expense to minimize. The data says it's a customer-acquisition channel with measurable lift, not a cost line.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO2RPDZkY88
Neon has distributed the last 6 Palme d'Or winners in a row.
This year they arrive at Cannes with 9 films in official selection. Six in Competition.

Acquisitions executives at the Marche this week are saying the same thing on the record: bidding wars are mostly over because "the exciting ones already have homes."

For producers, this is the thing nobody says at the cocktail parties: your festival strategy is now a Neon strategy. Either you are building toward something Neon would want, or you are building toward a secondary market with fewer dollars and fewer screens.

I am not anti-Neon. They have great taste and they win because they earn it. But when one company is the only meaningful buyer for the top tier of indie prestige, that is a market structure question, not a curation story.

The Cannes coverage will frame this as a winning streak. The real story is what happens to a market when winning streaks turn into monополии.

The Palme used to be the prize. Now it is the supply chain.
Peter Jackson compared the new Gollum movie to Joaquin Phoenix's "Joker."

Not a sequel. Not a prequel. A character study. Low fantasy, high psychology.

If "Hunt for Gollum" lands the Joker tone, it creates a template. IP doesn't have to mean more of the same. It can mean going deeper into one character.

If he pulls it off, this is the IP spin-off template.
"Obsession" opened this weekend to $17.1M with an A- CinemaScore. Beat
expectations again.

Horror keeps outperforming every genre in the theater.

The math is clear. The audience is there. Why do investors still treat
horror like a risk?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaaDkbG3I7g