It's like many startups: spend other people's money by finding investors.
It's a bit of a semantic game, but investing != spending. Paying someone's salary is not an investment in that you don't get money back from that person, you get something of value hopefully, but not a monetary return from them. Investing in a movie or a startup has an expectation of a monetary return, so the investment is not "spent" (relevant synonyms: exhausted, consumed, depleted) by the investor.
Then whoever is actually making the movie, versus investing in it, is the one spending money. But it's not their money, it's the producers' money.
That's the problem with people needlessly going out of their way to post the tl;dr which encourages people not to read the actual source with nuance and context. Of course we won't understand.
Comments
Since it wasn't explained in the opener.
I don't understand. Someone gotta put their hand in their pocket and break the rule or nothing would ever happen.
It's like many startups: spend other people's money by finding investors.
It's a bit of a semantic game, but investing != spending. Paying someone's salary is not an investment in that you don't get money back from that person, you get something of value hopefully, but not a monetary return from them. Investing in a movie or a startup has an expectation of a monetary return, so the investment is not "spent" (relevant synonyms: exhausted, consumed, depleted) by the investor.
Then whoever is actually making the movie, versus investing in it, is the one spending money. But it's not their money, it's the producers' money.
That's the problem with people needlessly going out of their way to post the tl;dr which encourages people not to read the actual source with nuance and context. Of course we won't understand.
Thanks.