So have you read the recent LA Times article about films budgets? ($78 million of red ink?) You may have at least heard about it, because this article has been linked to lots of snarky commentary on the outrageous amount spent on dying Matthew McConaughey’s hair. And I will admit, that’s pretty funny.

Getting past that, though, this article is really a rare peak into the world of gigantic budget Hollywood productions that are “developed” from existing “properties” (in the case of Sahara, a series of books). Some pretty amazing accounting gymnastics take place along the way. Here are a couple of sections from the article to give you an idea of what I’m talking about:

- Sahara, an action-adventure based on the bestselling novel by Clive Cussler, has lost about $105 million to date, according to a finance executive assigned to the movie. But records show the film losing $78.3 million based on Hollywood accounting methods that count projected revenue ($202.9 million in this case) over a 10-year period.

- “Courtesy payments,” “gratuities” and “local bribes” totaling $237,386 were passed out on locations in Morocco to expedite filming. A $40,688 payment to stop a river improvement project and $23,250 for “Political/Mayoral support” may have run afoul of U.S. law, experts say.

- Unlike most financial failures, “Sahara” performed reasonably well, ranking No. 1 after its opening weekend and generating $122 million in gross box-office sales. But the movie was saddled with exorbitant costs, including a $160-million production and $81.1 million in distribution expenses.

It makes me wonder, yet again, if one day people will realize how many more individual movies could be made for much smaller budgets, each with an opportunity to make a return on its modest investment through artful storytelling, filmmaking, and connection to a passionate audience.