 |
| |
|
![Impaler[WrG] is offline](/forums/images/off.gif)
|
Impaler[WrG]
|
 |
Cheif Manufacturing Officer of Morgan Industires
May 2002
time: 22:37
|
|
I reiterate the coments made many pages ago that Conservatives view any "context" in which Bush in viewed unfavorably as "out of context". His style is one of catching ones subject off guard, ridiculing and mocking them, it is NOT an interview and cant be judged on thouse standards. If your at all familiar with the Michel Moore show the segment involving the Congressmen is a perfect example of what he did in thouse shows. You judge the person being "ambushed" by seeing how they react to a stressfull questioning of their values much like a debate. Any congressmen with the balls to accept such a thing (and not run away like many did) has already impressed me regardless of what comes next. Moore has on ocasion found individuals who "stand and deliver" under the preshure.
An outlet with a Pro-Bush bias would usualy use a sleazy tactic such as never asking the hard questions or giving all the question in advance. Politicians consistently give "Canned" responses in these situations which completly fail to answer the questions asked. Moore's style breaks through that stuff to get to the core of the person or isshue.
P.S. I would like to congradulate GePap on his well though and constructive posts througout this thread (and all others I have read). He consistenly raises the IQ of any thread he partispates in.
Last edited by Impaler[WrG] on 01-07-2004 at 09:32
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:37
|
|
saw it, liked it. it doesnt do anything to change your mind though
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnT
|
 |
Capitalist
Mar 1999
time: 00:37
|
|
Speaking of scams:
The Wall Street Journal today is reporting that 60% of the net profits from F-911 is going to go to "unspecified charities". I'm sure that MM will trumpet this to the high heavens. However, in the few times that lawsuits have forced Hollywood to pry open their books, it is always revealed that Net Points aren't worth the paper they're written on. Check out the following regarding Forrest Gump, a movie that grossed $382,000,000 in the US on first release - it "lost" $62,000,000!!!
quote:
Hollywood accounting can be every bit as creative as a good movie script.
At least, that is what some lawyers and journalists seem to be telling us.
According to news reports, the hit movie Forrest Gump, which won "best picture"
honors at the Academy Awards, claimed a worldwide theatrical gross of $661
million in the first 18 months after its release. That amount excludes
videocassette and soundtrack revenues, nor does it include licensing fees on
Forrest Gump products such as wristwatches, ping-pong paddles,and shrimp
cookbooks. Yet,according to Paramount Studios, the film project lost $62
million on a box office gross of $382 million during its first year.
Forrest Gump is one of a string of hit movies to report a loss. Other
losers include Batman, Rain Man, Dick Tracy, Ghostbusters, Alien, On Golden
Pond, Fatal Attraction, and Coming to America. Each of these motion pictures
grossed well over $100 million, but in each case, costs were reportedly higher
than revenues.
How can the studios be losing so much money on their most successful
projects? Sometimes what is referred to as a loss is not really a loss at all.
Typically, profits are calculated based on contracts between the studios and
the film's "net profit participants."In a typical net profit participation
contract,"profit"is gross studio revenues after deductingF
* "Negative costs" - production costs and payments to "gross participants"
(who receive a percentage of gross studio revenues).
* Studio overhead (some of which is allocated to the film as a percentage
of the gross revenue.)
* Promotion and distribution costs.
* Advertising overhead (which is computed as a percentage of promotion
and distribution costs).
* A distribution fee paid directly to the studio.
* Interest on the unrecovered costs (losses), whether or not the film was
financed with debt.
The net profit participation contract is not the same as profit or loss
for the motion picture, which is accounted for as a project or job. Net profit
participation is a contract for compensation between the studio and certain
individuals.
Winston Groom, the author of Forrest Gump, retained an attorney to obtain
a share of the profits from the film, although Paramount reported a loss.
Groom was paid $350,000 for the movie rights to the book and is entitled to 3
percent of the film's net profits. Paramount says it expects Forrest Gump to
eventually show a profit and has advanced Groom $250,000 against his net
profit participation.
At issue in the lawsuit is the way the studios calculate net profit.
Critics argue that some of the costs (such as the distribution fee), are not
really costs at all; instead, they are studio profits disguised as costs.
Overhead allocations, such as studio overhead and advertising overhead,
are based on arbitrary allocations, which, some have argued, are much higher
than the actual overhead costs that are assignable to the film. In addition,
whether the net profit participants should lose compensation because of cost
overruns is questionable :they are largely under the control of the director,
the stars, and the studio.
Will Paramount ever report a profit for Forrest Gump? That depends
on how you define "profit" and whose perspective you take. Actor Tom Hanks
and director Robert Zemeckis have already made more than $20 million each,
including a share of the gross. But from the point of view of the net profit
participants(e.g.,Winston Groom),the film might never show a profit.
Required
Examine the net profit participant statement of profit and loss on page 138.
a. What amount of box office gross revenues is required before Forrest Gump
earns a profit according to the net profit participation contract?
b. What amount of box office gross revenues is required before Forrest
Gump earns a profit for Paramount?
c. Is Paramount's calculation of net profit fair to the net profit
participants?
Net Profit Participant Statement of Profit and Loss
Forrest Gump
During Its First Year of Release (in millions)
__________________________________________________
___________________________
Box office gross revenues $382
Less: Amount retained by movie theaters(50%) 191
_____
Studio's gross revenues $191 $191
Less: Negative costs:
Production costs $66.8
Gross profit participation 30.6
(director, actors, 16% of studio gross revenues)
Studio's overhead (15% of negative costs) 14.6
Promotion and distribution costs 67.2 67.2
Advertising overhead 6.7
(10% of promotion and distribution cost)
Distribution fee (32% of studio gross revenue) 61.1
_____
Total operating costs $247
Operating profit (loss) (56) (56)
Less: Financing costs 6
(3% above prime on operating loss, assume amount is fixed)
_______
Net profit (loss) for distribution to net profit participants $(62) |
And this sort of thing is so common it is accepted by the community. A word to those who would like to strike it big in the film industry - never, ever accept Net Points. Never. Not if you want to see any money from the movie. I bet they can figure out how Titanic ($1.8 billion worldwide grosses, $900,000,000 studio percentage) lost money as well. Or even the Blair Witch project, a movie that cost $50,000 to make and grossed about $150,000,000 in the US.
Last edited by JohnT on 02-07-2004 at 18:03
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-07-2004 08:58
Too bad MooreWatch.com was under fire for linking to a download for the movie.
|