following up on
this diary's probably specious claims, a brief breakdown of how tv movies are financed below the fold:
the producer of a tv movie
does not finance the movie, as i tried to make clear yesterday. UHP, who from the diary above seem to be a christian movie production company (probably single purpose to make this movie) would not be on the hook to pay a penny for the making of path to 9/11. rather, they
get a fee for producing it.
and at the budget level mooted, a pretty nice fee at that. the movie is paid for by ABC entertainment. a typical deal would see ABC pay a percentage of the costs of the total approved budget, with the producer getting the rest from a combination of foreign sales and subsidies from local area tax rebates (canada is famous for those, and that's why so many tv movies are made there).
it is possible that ABC paid a percentage, and UHP put up the rest themselves, but it is highly unlikely. still, it isn't out of the question, so i can't say for certain that they didn't. however, in my experience i've never heard of a producer putting up this kind of money to cover what is known as "the gap" or the deficit of such a network movie. It seems that in this case ABC's foreign sales division probably covered it themselves.
i know everyone wants a good conspiracy to warm their hearts, but the truth, while more prosaic, is enough to indict those who deserve indicting. all the baseless speculation contained in the diary mentioned above, in teresa's of yesterday, and others, is counterproductive and fever-swampish, in my opinion.
thoughts?