From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #349 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, November 30 2000 Volume 09 : Number 349 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: lennon's on sale again [drop the holupki ] She will be vibrating [BLATZMAN@aol.com] Re: the cluny setlist ["Dave Roberts" ] In the Red Planet [BLATZMAN@aol.com] Unlucky Numbers [BLATZMAN@aol.com] Re: On the Blatz Planet of Poor Widdle Studios [Capuchin ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:40:26 -0500 From: drop the holupki Subject: Re: lennon's on sale again when we last left our heroes, Stewart C. Russell exclaimed: >drop the holupki wrote: >> "it's me! dee snyder! see ya!" > >I saw him on TV last week discussing power ballads. That scared me. share the joy at . +w ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:45:49 EST From: BLATZMAN@aol.com Subject: She will be vibrating Thanks to all who gave suggestions on vibrators. I have to admit that being on the digest version of Fegmania has some disadvantages. I received some great suggestions AFTER I made my purchase. I bought something called "The Handyman". If anyone has any experience with this and knows it to be a true workhorse, please review it. Also, I bought one of those lifelike ones. Perhaps this was a mistake. After all, do men really know what women want???? I really should have consulted some women BEFORE the purchase!!! Hopefully it's a good one. I know price doesn't guarantee quality, but I also believe you get what you paid for. The Handyman cost me about 55 bucks. Anyway, I'd like to know why I got a ton of responses about my vibrator question, and not one response to my Hitchcock question about I gotta wok. Hmmm, Blatzy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 15:06:23 From: "Dave Roberts" Subject: Re: the cluny setlist Hi Do you have a set-list for the Oxford show please? with thanks dave >From: drop the holupki >Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org >To: jeebusmaniax! , fegmaniax-announce@smoe.org, >robynhitchcock@egroups.com >Subject: the cluny setlist >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:27:41 -0500 > >robyn solo >the cluny >newcastle-on-tyne >22 november 2000 > > 1. MEXICAN GOD > 2. CHINESE BONES > 3. VICTORIAN SQUID > 4. MY WIFE AND MY DEAD WIFE > 5. WHEN I WAS DEAD > 6. SILVER DAGGER > 7. 1974 > 8. BEAUTIFUL GIRL > 9. I AM NOT ME >10. AUTUMN IS YOUR LAST CHANCE >11. QUEEN OF EYES >12. I OFTEN DREAM OF TRAINS >13. YOU AND OBLIVION >14. ELEMENT OF LIGHT >15. FREEZE >(encores) >16. GENE HACKMAN >17. RIDE >18. HOWLIN'/ WOLFPACK /CHEESE/HEAVEN IMPROVISATION >19. RAYMOND CHANDLER EVENING >20. MADONNA OF THE WASPS > >woj _____________________________________________________________________________________ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:31:21 EST From: BLATZMAN@aol.com Subject: In the Red Planet Regarding Red Planet: <<< eventually!!! I'm saying exactly that. >> Are you just being argumentative, or naive, or dumb? No blockbuster, with a wide release, will ever lose money? That's great to know cause Titan AE tanked really hard which caused Fox Animation to just shut down here in Phoenix. A lot of talented animators lost jobs. The post production facilities in the area are out a significant amount of work. People at the post houses have lost jobs cause there is less work to do. Because of Titan AE. But I guess I should call Don Bluth and tell him to hire everyone back cause you say the money will roll in eventually anyway, so what's to stop them from making another film? Here's a little article for ya! Fox Closes Down Phoenix Animation Plant After six years of trying -- unsuccessfully -- to challenge Disney's domination of the feature animation business, 20th Century Fox announced Monday that it was throwing in the towel and closing its Phoenix-based animation unit headed by Don Bluth and Gary Goldman. The decision comes in the wake of the failure of the studio's Titan A.E. (2000), which reportedly cost $80 million to produce but which has grossed only $16.7 million at the box office after three weeks. It also follows the resignation of Fox chief Bill Mechanic, who is largely credited with reestablishing Fox's hand-drawn animation unit. I know what you'll say. The money will come back eventually... Or is it "I don't care cause it's somewhere else instead" << We're talking about an agency that has coerced its back-patting arm, AMPAS, to disqualify for their awards any film originally released over the internet. The idea is to make sure that independent, inexpensive productions are not recognized as superior products artistically. >> That is your opinion. That is not the idea. There are rules to follow in order to be eligible for Academy Awards. Just as there are rules to follow for submitting a film to the Sundance Festival. The rules are public. If you want your film to be eligible, it must, I believe, have a theatrical distribution. If you know your film is that great, strike a print, go the festival circuit, and if it's great it will be seen. Ever hear of Boys Don't Cry? Sling Blade? Shine? It makes more sense to make internet films eligible for Emmys. After all, the medium is much more like TV. Small screen, crappy sound... I think of course that internet films should have their own awards. It is a new medium. Films that premiere on TV ARE NOT eligible for Academy Awards. That is how it should be. Films that premiere theatrically are not eligible for the Emmys. Those are the rules. So come up with something new for the internet, or, if your piece is sooooooo great, work within the existing framework to maximize your exposure. <> I'm sorry, but I just don't believe this. I don't believe any of your numbers after your Red Planet example. I understand it to work that Exhibitors always get a cut. You're saying they OFTEN get nothing? 10% of opening weekend is pretty standard. <> Uh, DUH!, I don't. But if Family Man doesn't score big, Tea Leone has a lot to lose. This is a big role for her as a leading woman. But Ben isn't in the clear either. Big Budget leading man material? I dunno And then, in response to my question of what was fair for the Exhibitor: <> Cop Out!!!! I didn't ask you what was legal. I asked you what you thought was appropriate. I didn't say "should people be able to get shitfaced and drive 80 miles an hour on a city street near a school. Under your guidelines, the answer would be "Actually, I can't, because I agreed with the law's requirements four years ago when I signed the paperwork for a drivers license." What do you think theater owners are do? Forget the law. You know everything anyway, so what do you think they deserve? I am asking for your opinion. > And just think, if it's successful, you get to ride the gravy train > for weeks. If it's successful, it will make you a ton of money cause > you know your profit sharing increases with the life of the film. Why do you think the theater owners share profits on the film for its entire life? Understand that the life of the film for YOU (the studio) is about 1000 times longer than the life for me (the theater owner) and perhaps longer.>>>> GOOOOOODDDDDD. Are you paying attention? Where do you see that I said Exhibitors share profits for the entire life of a film. My first sentence here says you ride the gravy train for weeks! Excuse me, I thought you were smart enough to understand that we were talking about theatrical distribution. And films have a life within theaters. Sixth Sense had a very long life as opposed to Red Planet. And the Exhibitor's piece of the pie increases with the theatrical life of the film. The Exhibitor gets a higher percentage of total take in week 6 than he does in week one. I know you know that, so I don't know why you misunderstood my statement. Exhibitors make more money when a film has legs. By the way, the life of the film for me, the studio, SHOULD be 1000 times longer than the life for you(Exhibitor). After all, I was the one who put up the money and took the gamble... <> No, I am not a member. And thanks for the encouragement. I encourage people to make films. I encourage them to make them as cost efficient as possible. And if the Blair Witch people listened to your negativity, they might have thought they were getting nowhere either. This film I am editing is good enough to generate some dollars. Will it break even? I don't know. But it's better than 80% of the independents I've seen and we've had encouraging screenings. And you know what? Regardless of what happens, I've cut my first feature film. That's getting somewhere Blatzy PS- None of your mathematical calculations of a films break even point took into consideration 1)the revenues paid to the theater and 2) gross participation points of the Actors/Directors/Producers... Which means the studio would have to generate even MORE money on the film to hit their break even point. What then? Print up a few more bars of gold video? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:47:11 EST From: BLATZMAN@aol.com Subject: Unlucky Numbers I'd like to direct you to one of the worst box office bombs of the year Lucky Numbers: Budget $65 Million Estimate Prints & Advertising at $20 Million (this is a guess, but I think it's low) Box Office as of 5th week of release: $9.7 Million (currently on 300 screens) Consider the $9.7 number will include some money for the Exhibitor, and possible gross participation for Travolta & Ephron Let's just say it limps in at a $12 Million theatrical run(I really don't think it will get that high), and the studio gets $10 of it. That's only $75 Million to recover! Rev up the video duplication machines boys! We've got some serious gold to print! Blatzy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:09:18 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: On the Blatz Planet of Poor Widdle Studios On Thu, 30 Nov 2000 BLATZMAN@aol.com wrote: > What the hell do you know about theaters being forced to run a film > that's a stinker? For Your Info, Red Planet just enjoyed it's 3rd > week in release. For that third week of release, IT LOST OVER HALF > IT'S SCREENS. As I said, it's not something they do for EVERY film... theater owners would never stand for it. But it happens all the time for red letter studio releases. Read here: (If it can't be viewed as my browser failed to display it, there's a cached version at Google.) It says: Lucas has also done some behind-the-scenes maneuvering to insure his film's success. It will open on a whopping 2,500 screens, each of which has agreed to run the film for 12 weeks. So even if critics hate it (which is unlikely, judging from the reaction to the select few theater owners and friends of Lucas who have seen Phantom), the film is guaranteed to be at the multiplexes through the summer. This is not uncommon these days. Lucas got Phantom to open on 2500 screens and forced most of them to keep on their largest screens for 6 weeks and in their theater for 12. That's called gauranteed return on investment. You just block out all competititon and eventually, everyone who sees a movie at that theater in the next 3 months will be faced with the option of Phantom Menace. > So what are you talking about? The box office for Red Planet in it's > 3rd week of release is $15.6M. Let's look closer. It opened poorly. > In it's second week of release it lost 67% of it's business. In that > week, it was on 1043 screens. Exhibitors smelled a rat and pulled it > from theaters. For it's third week, it was on 557 screens. It lost > 59% of it's business and only brought in $1.1M. Expect the same > declines in the coming weeks. Where the hell do you get a $60 million > theatrical run? It's going to have trouble reaching $25 Million. I'm certainly not saying that ALL films get this kind of prefered treatment. In fact, it's my understanding that the agreement that theater owners must sign with major distributors ensure that the exhibitor is only responsible for four to six such forced runs in a given year. I believe I pointed that out in my last post. Red Planet wasn't the studio's gauranteed blockbuster... and rightly so, what with the poor showing of similar films in the past two years. > This type of Know-it-all nonsense only calls all your figures into > question. Again, I'm pretty sure I justified all of the money I claimed Pearl Harbor is assured. I didn't claim that it would pull its full cost just in domestic film and initial video release no matter how bad it was. > Where do you get your statistics on video revenue? I think I pretty clearly laid out how I came to those numbers. Pick up a video guide. Go down to your local video store and ask them how much they paid for some of their videos... particularly those that aren't "priced for retail". They'll tell you that they run between $90-$200 or their priced to sell-through at $10-$40. And now with DVD and VHS both being necessary for a rental release, the video store owners have to buy even more copies and often at different price points. > Why do you have such a hard time believing that a film like this can > lose money and that the studios can take a hit? Because it's a closed system. Because they have control over that work for the next century and the money will just keep trickling in. > Are you just being argumentative, or naive, or dumb? No blockbuster, > with a wide release, will ever lose money? That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that a studio can force a return on any given film and that they never spend more than they're gauranteed to make. So they make one movie every other year for over US$100M and force it in theaters longer and, if the theatrical run is still poor, they price it very high for video stores. > That's great to know cause Titan AE tanked really hard which caused > Fox Animation to just shut down here in Phoenix. A lot of talented > animators lost jobs. The post production facilities in the area are > out a significant amount of work. People at the post houses have lost > jobs cause there is less work to do. Right. Titan AE didn't make the astronomical profits that was anticipated and the MPAA isn't in the nickel and dime business. It'll turn a profit in the end (and probably just with the initial video release). But if the profits aren't high enough, the studio won't back similar projects in the future. They'll use their resources elsewhere. They didn't shut down because Titan AE won't turn a profit. They shut down because Titan AE won't turn ENOUGH profit. They know that the movie going audience is only so large and they should focus on making those films that will draw as much of that audience as possible and maximize profits instead of splitting that audience on several modestly profiting films. Your article says that Titan AE grossed over US$16M in three weeks and cost US$80M to produce. Again, there's still the overseas sales and video plus second run cinemas (where Titan AE did fairly well, at least here) and merchandizing contracts (which include multimillion dollar payments up front and only the merchandise manufacturer loses if the popularity isn't there), and television. The END of Titan AE's ability to make money won't come in any of our lifetimes. It will have paid for itself within the next two years. But as I said, it's not worth the money to Fox to keep turning out movies that take so long to profit. They can release fewer films (and at a lower cost) and maximize those profits instead of splitting the moviegoing audience. > I know what you'll say. The money will come back eventually... Or is > it "I don't care cause it's somewhere else instead" I don't quite get what you're saying here. > That is your opinion. That is not the idea. There are rules to > follow in order to be eligible for Academy Awards. Just as there are > rules to follow for submitting a film to the Sundance Festival. The > rules are public. Of course there are rules. But it's important to note who is making the rules and consider the motivations. They're saying that even if you EVENTUALLY get a theatrical release... even the same YEAR, if you initially released it digitally on the internet, you don't qualify. So you can meet the requirement of first showing in a theater in New York or LA within the previous year with no distribution in any previous year and still not qualify. It's clearly exclusionary. If you can find a reason why they would enact this besides simple protectionism (limiting the ability to use cheap distribution for those who want mainstream recognition), I'd like to hear it. > If you want your film to be eligible, it must, I believe, have a > theatrical distribution. If you know your film is that great, strike > a print, go the festival circuit, and if it's great it will be seen. > Ever hear of Boys Don't Cry? Sling Blade? Shine? Yeah, a few films go from the festival circuit to the mainstream consciousness. I don't think anybody denies this and I don't see where it gets your point. There are heaps of movies that are just as good that fail because the artist won't make a deal with the major studio that gives them a big enough cut. I'll also tell you that the cut of Slingblade I saw when it played at the Northwest Film and Video Center is not the cut of Slingblade I saw on HBO. And, of course, I don't have to tell you that those three films were "independent" only insofar as they weren't backed by one of the four major studios. They still had big names associated with them and they still cost millions of dollars. > < number of people viewing and the license for the particular film) the > ENTIRE ticket proceeds for a given showing of a film>> > > I'm sorry, but I just don't believe this. Talk to a theater owner. Find an independent first-run theater and ask them. I know this from close associations with the management of the Varsity Theater in Ashland, Oregon. They have since become a second-run film as a multiplex was built up the street owned by some chain. > I don't believe any of your numbers after your Red Planet example. It was all YOUR Red Planet example. If you mean my explanation of how Pearl Harbor is gauranteed US$100M in domestic first run theatrical and initial video release, then I can't help you. Do some research and validate my numbers. It's all pretty clear. > I understand it to work that Exhibitors always get a cut. You're > saying they OFTEN get nothing? 10% of opening weekend is pretty > standard. I'm saying that it depends on butts in seats... and that they pay a flat fee to play the film at each showing (at the Varsity, if you were at a matinee or the last show on a weeknight, you often had to stand in the lobby and wait for five to twenty other people to show, otherwise they couldn't play the movie because they lost money) and a cut of each ticket thereafter. And those margins are getting thinner and thinner as the studios strangle the independents out of business. > Cop Out!!!! I didn't ask you what was legal. I asked you what you thought > was appropriate. I didn't say "should people be able to get shitfaced and > drive 80 miles an hour on a city street near a school. Under your > guidelines, the answer would be "Actually, I can't, because I agreed with > the law's requirements four years ago when I signed the paperwork for a > drivers license." What do you think theater owners are do? Forget the law. > You know everything anyway, so what do you think they deserve? I am asking > for your opinion. Fella, you misunderstand. I said it the theater owner WANTS to ditch the poorly performing flick and free up his largest screen, but he can't (with some films) because of his distribution contract. Surely I THINK he SHOULD be able to ditch a poorly showing Pearl Harbor in favor of something that will do better, but he can't. And if he violates that agreement, he'll get no more damn films... and he won't be in business at all. << > > If it's successful, it will make you a ton of money cause > > you know your profit sharing increases with the life of the film. > > Why do you think the theater owners share profits on the film for its > entire life? >> > > GOOOOOODDDDDD. Are you paying attention? Where do you see that I said > Exhibitors share profits for the entire life of a film. My first sentence > here says you ride the gravy train for weeks! In your second sentence. (I cut the first one for length.) And actually, the profit sharing decreases as the film goes on because a smaller and smaller percentage of the ticket sales becomes profit for the theater owner. Ticket sales decrease over time, but the operating costs and the amount paid per viewer stay the same. > And the Exhibitor's piece of the pie increases with the theatrical > life of the film. The Exhibitor gets a higher percentage of total > take in week 6 than he does in week one. I know you know that, so I > don't know why you misunderstood my statement. Actually, I disagree with that as I stated above. The percentage of the total take decreases over time. But the total take increases and therefore total profits increase... but not the percentage of the take that is profit. > Exhibitors make more money when a film has legs. By the way, the life > of the film for me, the studio, SHOULD be 1000 times longer than the > life for you(Exhibitor). After all, I was the one who put up the > money and took the gamble... Well, I'm still saying that there's no gamble. I'm also saying that 100 years is far too long and there's no public benefit in it. Copyright exists as an incentive for authors to increase the useful public domain. The usefulness of a work decreases over time (with very few exceptions). Extended copyrights (like those currently in law) fail to increase the useful public domain and simply line pockets. Also, there should be no such thing as a "copyright holder". This is an illegal fiction invented by publishing companies (including movie studios) because it is plain that a company is not the author of a book or a movie any more than every person place and thing in a person's life is the author of their autobiography and the US Constitution only provides copyright protection for authors (and patent for inventors). There are less than fifty feature films for which no one claims copyright... this after 100 years of movie making. If the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act is allowed to stand, it will set a precedent that will prevent anything from lapsing in copyright ever. And I could go on and on about the difference between fine art and useful art and why copyright applies to neither and patent only applies to one. > < major studios? Because otherwise, you're getting nowhere.>> > No, I am not a member. And thanks for the encouragement. I encourage > people to make films. I encourage them to make them as cost efficient > as possible. And if the Blair Witch people listened to your > negativity, they might have thought they were getting nowhere either. I hope that nobody outside of a major studio is out there making film for the money. It's like buying lottery tickets. I hope nobody's out there doin that, either... but I suppose I know better. > This film I am editing is good enough to generate some dollars. Will > it break even? I don't know. But it's better than 80% of the > independents I've seen and we've had encouraging screenings. And you > know what? Regardless of what happens, I've cut my first feature > film. And that's what it's all about and I congratulate you. It's great to create and to be involved in the production of art that will improve humanity and grow our understanding of the world. And I totally encourage you. > PS- None of your mathematical calculations of a films break even point > took into consideration > 1)the revenues paid to the theater No revenues are paid to the theater. The theater owner gets his mark-up on each ticket and that's all. If it's a low mark-up because that's all the market will bear, it's a low/no profit show for the theater owner. The studio fixes a price that it must be paid per ass in seat. There is also a flat fee per showing regardless of how many people show. If the mark-up the local theater adds to the ticket price established by the distributor times the number of people attending the show is not higher than the flat fee for that showing, there's no profit. > 2) gross participation points of the Actors/Directors/Producers... > Which means the studio would have to generate even MORE money on the > film to hit their break even point. Actors/Directors/Poducers, as I understand it, are paid for their work plus royalties on profits, much like recording artists. If there is no profit, there are no royalties. The break-even point is fixed. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 14:27:48 -0600 From: "JH3" Subject: Re: Unlucky Numbers >Let's just say it limps in at a $12 Million theatrical run(I really don't >think it will get that high), and the studio gets $10 of it. That's only $75 >Million to recover! >Rev up the video duplication machines boys! We've got some serious >gold to print! It's OK if you want to defend the motion picture industry and all that, Dave, but are you trying to tell us that just because it's theoretically possible for one given movie to lose money even after its entire copy- right period is over (and given the length of time involved, I think it would have to be a pretty friggin' awful movie), that the studios' efforts to deny exhibitors a reasonable share of the revenue for *all* movies are justified? Don't you have to look at *overall* revenue and profit figures for studios and distributors? Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that figures for specific individual releases should be irrelevant. I mean, if I hire ten people for my company, and one of them turns out to be totally unable to do the work, am I entitled to ask the other nine to take up the slack just so I won't have to fire the useless person, because that would make me look stupid for hiring him/her in the first place? Wait a minute, I guess that's too common a practice to make a good analogy... How about this one: If I own ten manufacturing plants, and there's a strike at one of them and the managers who take over the assembly lines do such a lousy job that the products they make end up killing people, is it right for me to dock everybody's pay at all my other plants to maintain profits in the face of massive lawsuits? Hold on, I guess they do that too... OK, try this one on for size: If I have ten regional distribution centers for my retail chain, and sales in one region are lagging waaay behind the others, is it justifiable for me to shut down the poorly-performing center, transfer its inventory to the others, and then raise sales quotas for everyone without lowering prices to get rid of the excess before I have to pay taxes on it? Hmmm, I guess that isn't so ridiculous either, in real terms... So let's say I'm a health insurance company, and I sign up ten people for health insurance and one of them ends up costing me millions while the others never get sick at all, is it fair for me to jack up the premiums for the other nine to make up for it, rather than accept the loss as due to bad luck and/or my poor actuarial skills? Uh, no no no, this is no good... There must be *something*... OK, let's say I'm a public school administrator, I hire ten new teachers, and one of them turns out to be an illiterate communist pedophile serial killer. Should I admit my mistake and fire him, thus risking his suing me for discriminating against illiterate communist pedophile serial killers, or should I just let the guy keep teaching and tell the irate parents that the school is experimenting with "alternative" teaching methodologies, and that they should just "get over it"? Er, I'm just not doing very well at this, am I? Maybe I should just concentrate on this "walk" vs. "wok" issue. I guess it could be "wok," especially since the "I gotta leave" line is echoed later in "smell the burning leaves"... Interesting point, actually. If only we had the self-discipline to stick to this degree of topicality. JH3 ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #349 *******************************