Main Line vs. Basinger
The case Main Line vs. Basinger deals with Basinger refusal to be part of the “Boxing Helena film” in taking up her role as an actor leading to the film not being shot. The claim by Main Line is that Basinger had refused to take her leading role as she had agreed in the agreement with the company.This paper will examine the arguments and the situations of both the defendant and plaintiff and the conclusion made by expert opinions on whether the claim by Main line for compensation is justified or not. The damages brought about by Basinger to the Main line is between 5 million to ten million which should be revised downwards according to the line due to several reasoning to domestic revenues the company only demanded 3 million from the film .
The film’s presale amount according to experts is that the film when Basinger would have acted in it would amount to 2.7 million but 12.7 million amount for the ultimate revenues. This presale is however not so convincing to me especially that it is based on presale. This amount is the one needed to be compensated. It would only seem reasonable to set the amount at 3 million after considering some implications. in foreign presales, I also believe that 8000,00 should also be included because of the probable of the pre-sales and was not determined on the number of countries the film would be shown in various cinemas. This therefore means that the given number cannot be fully estimated and needs not to be included in this case.
As for the 2.1 million losses, the same can also be said because if the film was to be shot without the main actor Miss Basinger there could still occur some losses. Therefore the 2.1 million shillings is not based losses but it shows only the deduction of the film losses in the absence of Basinger. This amount can neither be said to be unbiased or subjective mainly because the research was carried out by main Line experts. With this in min, it shows that the findings were hyperbolized to fit his interests due to the losses incurred. Also the case was being presented in court in 1992. The film had not yet been released or even shot which therefore means that there was no need to estimate the profits it would have made if Basinger was starring in the main role.
Presale profits are the only best way in estimating the sum to be compensated and not any other. The final analysis for Basinger’s salary amounts to 3 million. This serves as the best starting point in determining the sum she should compensate the firm because it gives her leading roles seen in her remuneration.
The comparison of revenues the firm receives with Fenn and not Basinger’s films, are not also the best ways of determining the amount to be compensation because Fenn was not needed to be in Boxing Helena taking the leading role. The film shooting was also not possible. The film company is entitles to compensation on the basis of Basinger’s inconvenience to reject her role. This compensation should however not been derived from the perspective that the film had already been shot, run and aired on cinema screens.
The judgment against Basinger or/and Main line picture is part of the law matter in an unintelligible way since it is based on social verdict findings in an equality unintelligible way. The findings helped the court to reverse the judgment in favor of the defendant. The special verdict passed is to obtain the resolution of the jury of all the factual issues under controversies. The Basinger case was establishing whether or not she breached the contract agreement or was engaged in a deal making of Hollywood caprice. This was a time when the Hollywood deals were being criticized with lack of integrity by the press. The press also went ahead to discuss the various implication the actors would have in such Hollywood productions.
Boxing Helena film is of such controversial issues more than the legal issues the juries and judges. The story of the movie is about the main an actor who had an accident. She meets a doctor who amputates her injured legs and arms. The doctor then keeps the injured woman in a box as his hostage with the hope that the woman would at the end fall in love with him. Basinger refused to act the role of this woman inn the film on the basis of the personality and graphic scenes of the character.
The revenue of the film projected too is $15 million in Europe based on the total of the sold tickets. Payment to the producer will be calculated as the 15 million dollars minus 40% for the costs of printing, miscellaneous distribution, and advertising .This we can say would amount to an approximately 3 million dollars, then the film producer will be paid $ 15 million – (40% x $ 15 million) - $3 million. This is equivalent to $ 6 million. Whether the film succeeds or not in the box office count down the guaranteed amount would not be less s than $ 5 million.
The costs of the film for the producer are based on the outlays of actors fees, acquiring the script right, the production and director personnel , the processing and the film stock, the sets, the rentals of cameras, special effects , post production cots, costumes , sound music and editing. A master copy has to be delivered by the producer which the master will enable the printing of other copies. The producer also bares distribution elements and advertising until when the producers share is given by the box office.
Neither of the experts in this case used the Statement of Financial Accounting standards. The SFAS 1981 number 53 requires the film companies to amortize the costs of film production by the use of the actual revenues within a specified period of time so as to come up with a percentage of the films total ultimate revenues. For instance, if the film would have cost $5 million for its production and within its economic life it is expected to generate an amount of $ 7 million, then it would mean that within a period of 1 year the actual revenue will be $ 3 million. The expenses incurred by the film company would be 3/7 of the production cost of $5 million in one year or $2.1 million.