From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest)
To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org
Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #354
Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org
Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org
Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org
Precedence: bulk


fegmaniax-digest       Monday, December 4 2000       Volume 09 : Number 354



                               Today's Subjects:
                               -----------------
  The Trickster              [Asshole Motherfucker <asshole@feedthefish.org>]
  the Damned                       ["Marc Holden" <mholden666@earthlink.net>]
  Re: Jesus Pumpkin tributes               [Jeff Dwarf <munki1972@yahoo.com>]
  Re: Don't dis the Mont                   [Jeff Dwarf <munki1972@yahoo.com>]
  Re: the Damned                          [Eleanore Adams <eleanore@tdl.com>]
  gee, mike, there sure is a lot of skin in this movie!  ["Andrew D. Simchik]
  Nuns have Boobs Too                      [Jeff Dwarf <munki1972@yahoo.com>]
  udders and udderwise                          [Eb <ElBroome@earthlink.net>]
  Re: Robyn on C5          ["Stewart C. Russell" <stewart@ref.collins.co.uk>]
  Re: It's a small Red Planet after all, it's a small small Red Planet  [lea]
  Environmental Hitchcock (I mean Health)   ["Yudt.Matthew" <yudt@niehs.nih.]
  Re: the Damned                           ["brian nupp" <bnupp@hotmail.com>]
  RIP                                    [Marcy Tanter <tanter@tarleton.edu>]
  boobs           ["jbranscombe@compuserve.com" <jbranscombe@compuserve.com>]
  red red red red red                                      [BLATZMAN@aol.com]
  Re: gee, mike, there sure is a lot of skin in this movie!  [Viv Lyon <vivl]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 22:25:17 -0800
From: Asshole Motherfucker <asshole@feedthefish.org>
Subject: The Trickster

Eb is the trickster of the southwest coast of North America.  He 
is also a bufoon, glutton, and fool rolled into one.  Sometimes he 
is cultural hero and benefactor to man -- but usually by accident.



<can anyone advise me on the best liquor for buying for the purpose of
aging?  ie, something that will be much better in a lot of years 
from now?
and is there a limit to how long to wait?>

damn.  somebody was just trying to sell us (the restaurant) something 
that's been aging since 1892 (or something).  i *think* it was some 
kind of scotch, but i just can't remember for sure.  anyhow, did 
y'all know there's a black market for agave tequila?  apparently 
they had a very poor crop this year, so demand's really high.  so 
some ship carrying a load of it was hijacked a month or so ago.


<and any city where people try to NIMBY nuns, well ... that's real 
fucked up.>

do tell!


<Now this is facinating....Is anyone familiar with Desmond Morris,
(wrote The Naked Ape) the anthopologist. Last night on Discovery 
Channel they were rerunning his series on Human Sexuality>

yeah, i was just flipping channels last night, and happened upon 
it.  my favourite part was when he showed the difference in size 
between the pubic bones of the walrus and the hedgehog.  (really!)


<Coombining two threads, the most gratuitous use of boobs on an album 
coveris probably Supertramp's "Indelibly stamped".

Bringing it back on topic, "Raw Cuts".>

actually, that wasn't RAW CUTS -- though RAW CUTS derived from the 
same session, and it was recorded for raw records.

<URL:http://robynhitchcock.com/givetosoft7.jpeg>.

can there be such a thing as non-gratuitous use of boobs on an album 
cover?  is it possible, in other words, that without the boobs on 
the album cover, the contents of the album would be completely meaningless?

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 00:02:11 -0700
From: "Marc Holden" <mholden666@earthlink.net>
Subject: the Damned

       I saw the Damned a couple years ago, and Captain Sensible was up to his
usual playing naked bit. At first it was fairly humorous, but it was wearing a
bit thin by mid-song. I remember the Captain yelling out,"We may have small
penises, but we're from outer space!...".
       Speaking of the Captain, I don't think I've ever heard any of the
titles Robyn wrote for him called out at a Hitchcock show. Has Robyn even
recorded any of them?--I'm not even sure how many songs Robyn has written for
Captain Sensible, but I know I don't have them all. Any recommendations?
Marc

The first thing was, I learned to forgive myself.  Then, I told myself, "Go
ahead and do whatever you want, it's okay by me."   --- Jack Handey

<Anyway, it's a quiet night in fegland, anyone want to relate their tale of a
show that
<was spoiled by the performer's dress (or lack thereof)?  Iggy Pop and Red Hot
Chili
<Peppers don't count.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 23:25:02 -0800 (PST)
From: Jeff Dwarf <munki1972@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Jesus Pumpkin tributes

steve <schiavo@home.com> wrote:
> Given his religious views, I doubt that Andy would write anything
> about Jesus. The original inspiration was a gradually decaying
> Jack-O-Lantern that Andy did for his kids.

the second part is definitely true; as for the first part, you can like
and admire Jesus as a philosopher and as a thinker without believing
he's the son of god. and as so many christians prove, believe he's the
son of god without admiring him as a thinker/philosopher.

=====
"The public have an insatiable curiosity to know everything,
 except what is worth knowing.  Journalists, conscious of
 this, and having tradesman-like habits, supplies their
 demands."
    -- Oscar Wilde
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 23:50:23 -0800 (PST)
From: Jeff Dwarf <munki1972@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Don't dis the Mont

BLATZMAN@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 12/3/2000 1:29:37 AM US Mountain Standard Time, 
> owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org writes:
> 
> << you publicly declare your love for fremont, yet you want to be
> taken
>  seriously? i mean, fremont, the city whose official mottos: at least
>  we're not milpitas.
>   >>
> 
> Yes, I love my hometown.  I miss my hometown.  I am happy that I grew
> up in 
> Fremont when there were orchards and farms everywhere.  Milpitas was
> a 
> budding city.  It still retains much of it's beauty, but it is
> certainly 
> showing signs of age.  I would be unhappy to live there now, as I
> hear that 
> the growing pains have practically undone it.  But I know a much
> better 
> Fremont than you, apparently.  The corner of Mission and Driscol(I
> believe) was all farm.  Warm Springs was a winery, and it was
> beautiful.
> 
> After living in LA for 10 years, you begin to see how pretty the city
> actually is.  Maybe you need to get out more and live a little before
> you can apprciate what you have.

the key words here are "LA." the corners of Mission & Driscoll are now
a vacant lot where a gas station was, and a realty office. I do
remember when there was space, and when the hills weren't covered in
houses, which is probably part of why any fond memories i could have
are becoming less and less plausible. the only open space left is
either committed to becoming office complexes or is Coyote Hills. it's
turning into LA (of course, the whole Silicon Valley is).

besides, how can you love any city with over 200,000 people, yet the
third best restaurant in town is fucking Olive Garden, and where they
tear down Clint Eastwood's favorite bar in town. still, you can always
find a 7-11 within 4 blocks of wherever you are. it has become a strip
mall with housing. which is fine for the basic parts of living
(assuming you can afford the rents around here anymore) but it makes
doing anything else rather inconvenient.

and damn it, they did stop them from building a fucking Wal-Mart!!!


> Blatzy


=====
"The public have an insatiable curiosity to know everything,
 except what is worth knowing.  Journalists, conscious of
 this, and having tradesman-like habits, supplies their
 demands."
    -- Oscar Wilde
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 23:54:28 -0800
From: Eleanore Adams <eleanore@tdl.com>
Subject: Re: the Damned

Marc Holden wrote:

> <Anyway, it's a quiet night in fegland, anyone want to relate their tale of a
> show that
> <was spoiled by the performer's dress (or lack thereof)?  Iggy Pop and Red Hot
> Chili
> <Peppers don't count.

Well, I can't think of dress that ruined a show, but I can think if eyes that
have "ruined" a show. I once saw Foetus, was in the very front "row" by the
stage, and Jim Thirwell's  (Jim Feotus) eyes scared me so much I had to leave.
Like leave and go home, not just to the bar or the ladies room. I don't know why,
exactly, because I fully am aware that he is a musician, not a serial killer, but
his eyes were very, very cold. Those of you who have worked as therapists, cops,
teachers, etc, know that "cold" look. I can't really describe it well. If I were
religious and believed in souls, I would say that it is the look of someone who
has no soul/spirit. He gave me nightmares.

Of coarse, with the Residents the costumes  make half the show, so without the
costumes, there would be a vast abscence of stage presence.

I once saw The Mentors, and those costumes left something to be desired. They
wore bondage gear, including the leather hoods. Not attractive fellows by a long
shot. I think the hoods were actually a good idea. They opened for the Revolting
Cocks, who, in the rip off tradition of the Red Hot Chili Peppers were completely
nude except for the strategic sock.

I remember seeing Alien Sex Fiend,and the costumes inhanced the stage work. The
problem with that show is that the guys i came to the show with as friends
thought that they were at liberty to look like Alien Sex Fiend siblings, and had
no problen taking off some clothing to reveal their grusome new tatoos (this was
about 10-11 years ago, so full back tatoos were less popular than they are
today.) and dance like maniacs.

Finished watching the john lennen story on NBC, while my husband finished
watching the Dune mini series on SCI Fi. The lennon story was not well acted, but
was entertaining for a sunday night, and I never seem to tire of hearing the
story of how the beatles formed. i would give it 2 stars.

- -eleanore

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 00:22:59 -0800
From: "Andrew D. Simchik" <drew@stormgreen.com>
Subject: gee, mike, there sure is a lot of skin in this movie!

I think most people are not naive enough to think that their choice of
clothing is utterly neutral.  This goes double for musicians.  I'm not
going to look at a female singer/songwriter who's showin' a lot more
cleavage than would be accidental and think that she isn't trying to
get someone's attention (perhaps not mine, but...).  Likewise, I'm
hard-pressed to check out Prince's asscheeks through a pair of see-through
pants and think he had zero interest in getting anyone in the audience
horny.

I'm not going to take them less seriously as musicians, but then I'm not
the sort of person who thinks you can't objectify yourself and still be
respectable.

My cat is the cutest fucking thing on the planet.  I wish you could see
him right now.

Drew
- -- 
Andrew D. Simchik, drew at stormgreen.com
http://www.stormgreen.com/

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 01:02:02 -0800 (PST)
From: Jeff Dwarf <munki1972@yahoo.com>
Subject: Nuns have Boobs Too

Asshole Motherfucker <asshole@feedthefish.org> wrote:
>> and any city where people try to NIMBY nuns, well ... that's real 
>> fucked up.
> 
> do tell!

a local convent wanted to donate some property to a developer, with the
condition that it be used to build starter housing (as in, it had to be
priced so that younger couples and whatnot could afford it) and other
less pricey housing (90% of the housing (over)built in fremont over the
past 15 years was over half a million and is even more now). the
planning commission and city council ultimately voted to turn down the
development on the grounds it could attracts "undesireables" like
people making only $45-60K. 


>>> Combining two threads, the most gratuitous use of boobs on an album
>>> cover is probably Supertramp's "Indelibly stamped".
> 
>> Bringing it back on topic, "Raw Cuts".
> 
> actually, that wasn't RAW CUTS -- though RAW CUTS derived from the 
> same session, and it was recorded for raw records.
> 
> <URL:http://robynhitchcock.com/givetosoft7.jpeg>.

that 12 year old on the _Blind Faith_ album cover?

> can there be such a thing as non-gratuitous use of boobs on an album 
> cover?  is it possible, in other words, that without the boobs on 
> the album cover, the contents of the album would be completely 
> meaningless?

RHCP _mother's milk_? it wouldn't necessarily render the context
meaningless, but i would call that sleeve terrible gratuitous. maybe
_Nothing's Shocking_?

=====
"The public have an insatiable curiosity to know everything,
 except what is worth knowing.  Journalists, conscious of
 this, and having tradesman-like habits, supplies their
 demands."
    -- Oscar Wilde
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 01:43:56 -0700
From: Eb <ElBroome@earthlink.net>
Subject: udders and udderwise

>>>> the most gratuitous use of boobs on an album cover
>>
>that 12 year old on the _Blind Faith_ album cover?

I think we have a winner!

I saw the revived Go-Betweens on Saturday night (not to mention that damned
Franklin Bruno...AGAIN), but just haven't had time to weave a tale about
it. Maybe tomorrow, but probably not. I'm in a major crunch. It *was* an
interesting night, complete with a dose of legitimate starfugging and
unexpected encounters with gruesome Hollywood glitz. Oh yes, I'll put a
chill up Jeme's spine....

One of things I've been doing this weekend is narrowing down a top 10 for
2000 -- it's a pretty depressing task for me, given the unusually weak
competition. Now I know how the Academy feels, when they pick Best Lead
Actress nominations. And damn, I need to hear that Badly Drawn Boy
album...ASAP!

Speaking of top 10s, here's the first interesting one I've seen -- CDNow's
top 10 Alternative/Indie albums. I mostly repost this, because I have
enormous respect for the writer (even though we often disagree). I didn't
bother typing the titles...just the artists.

1. PJ Harvey [this has grown on me, I must admit]
2. Ryan Adams [didn't quite warm up to this, but I respect it]
3. At the Drive-In [haven't heard it, but I doubt it's my cuppa]
4. Badly Drawn Boy [see above]
5. 16 Horsepower [haven't heard it, but I heard a previous album or two and
found them tiresome]
6. Radiohead [<holding my nose>]
7. Starlight Mints [almost liked it, but too samey and too much of a
Pavement ripoff]
8. Coldplay [haven't heard it beyond Real Audio clips, but I doubt it'll
appeal to me]
9. Grandaddy [heard and liked it, but no way it's top-10 quality for me]
10. Elf Power [haven't hear this either, but I'd like to]

(If you check the CDNow site yourself, you can find several other
genre-confined top 10s for Rock, Hip-Hop, Electronic/Dance and more.)

Eb

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 10:10:59 +0000
From: "Stewart C. Russell" <stewart@ref.collins.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Robyn on C5

Gary Sedgwick wrote:
> 
> He looked pretty uneasy throughout
> (including nearly fluffing a line in the Yip Song).

yes, he didn't look at his best. Nor did he seem terribly at ease doing
the joke shop skit with Jerry.

 Stewart

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 08:31:14 -0600
From: leahyc@tsainc.com
Subject: Re: It's a small Red Planet after all, it's a small small Red Planet

blatzman wrote:
>Hey, I grew up in Fremont!  Glad to see some aspiring film makers in the 
old 
>stomping grounds!!!!!!  I shot a bunch of stuff at Lake Elizabeth.  Ahhh, 

>yes, Fremont.  How I love thee...

ahem... perhaps my cousin should have clarified.
he lives in fremont, *nebraska*. 


chad







BLATZMAN@aol.com
Sent by: owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org
12/02/00 10:19 AM
Please respond to BLATZMAN

 
        To:     fegmaniax@smoe.org
        cc: 
        Subject:        It's a small Red Planet after all, it's a small small Red Planet


In a message dated 12/1/2000 11:59:58 PM US Mountain Standard Time, 
owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org writes:

<< nothing like a Disney movie, or whatever, but still...), and I can 
 guarantee you that Blockbuster (at least here in Fremont) will have 
 anywhere from 50-100 copies in stock.  Be >>

Hey, I grew up in Fremont!  Glad to see some aspiring film makers in the 
old 
stomping grounds!!!!!!  I shot a bunch of stuff at Lake Elizabeth.  Ahhh, 
yes, Fremont.  How I love thee...

By the way, your numbers do nothing to bolster capucino's arguments cause 
I 
have only seen speculation as to how much money is made off video. 
Unfortunately my info is about 6 years old and pre DVD.  But at that time 
ancillary markets did not make up more than 25%, on average, of what a 
film 
pulled in in theaters.  This info came straight from the mouth of the man 
who 
I entirely trust since he studied and formed box office models for many 
many 
years.  Revenue in perpetuity is so much more complicated than saying "Oh, 

blockbuster is buying X amount at Y dollars, so the film will break even" 
We 
had an entire class based on this at USC, and it's complexity was 
staggering. 
 FIlms do not break even nearly as often as you claim.

My whole argument was that not all films break even.  Cappucino did in 
fact 
state that all big studio films turn a profit over time.  This is 
absolutely 
not true.  This is what I take issue with.  Every number I quote is easily 

confirmed on regularly published box office schedules.  Maybe you can tell 
me 
where to find the info on how much a studio makes on video release.  I'm 
sure 
the number has changed over the past 6 years, but I doubt the percentages 
have gone up that much.

GOoooooooo Fremont. Oh, BrewPub on the Green, How I miss you!!!!!

Blatzy

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 09:39:43 -0500 
From: "Yudt.Matthew" <yudt@niehs.nih.gov>
Subject: Environmental Hitchcock (I mean Health) 

Hello fegs.
Regarding a few recent posts containg words like "dioxin" and
"endocrine disruptors" I have taken it upon myself to share
information with you.  To those of you who don't care - sorry, but
others seemed knowledgeable and interested (or just interested) so I
thought I'd put some taxpayer (U.S.) money to use and post some
info-links.  Since I work here at the Nat'l Inst. of Env. Health
Sciences it represents the FIRST time I can post to this list AND do
my job at the same time!  Thank you for this opportunity.  

Dioxins:  http://www.niehs.nih.gov/oc/factsheets/dioxin.htm

Endocrine Disruptors:
http://ehis.niehs.nih.gov/topic/endodisrupt.html

or just visit the home site and browse around:
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/


Matt "always willing to talk science before politics" Yudt

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 09:54:52 -0500
From: "brian nupp" <bnupp@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: the Damned

>From: "Marc Holden" >
Speaking of the Captain, I don't think I've ever heard any of the
>titles Robyn wrote for him called out at a Hitchcock show. Has Robyn even
>recorded any of them?--I'm not even sure how many songs Robyn has written 
>for
>Captain Sensible, but I know I don't have them all. Any recommendations?
>Marc

I have the Captains 1st LP "Women and Captain First." It's a pretty good 
album from 1982 I think. I think 2 songs were co-written by RH: Brenda 
(Where Hitchcock adds a very pretty 12 string guitar on the 2nd half of the 
song), and Croydon. On this 2nd song RH had to write the lyrics. In fact 
there is this little piece of singing before the song that I've often 
wondered if it actually is Hitchcock. It's someone (either the Captain or 
RH) singing the melody and lyrics to the song w/out the music. Anyone know 
if this is RH singing?

I also have the Captain's "Spider" single. Co-written by RH. A very good 
song in my opinion. I'm still seeking the LP this originates from.

Brian Nupp

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 08:56:40 -0500
From: Marcy Tanter <tanter@tarleton.edu>
Subject: RIP

Gwendolyn Brooks.


Dr. Marcy Tanter
Assistant Professor of English
Tarleton State University
Stephenville, TX

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 10:22:38 -0500
From: "jbranscombe@compuserve.com" <jbranscombe@compuserve.com>
Subject: boobs

I remember seeing the Cramps at the Mayfair in Newcastle and the charming
locals were chanting at Ivy 'Get your tits oot (out) for the lads', to
which an inevitably shirtless Lux replied 'Aren't mine good enough for
ya?!' Pretty witty I thought at the time.

jmbc.

I've seen Lux's willy more times than I care to remember, and, unusually
for a U.S. male (so I've been led to believe!) he is uncurcumcised. Now
there's a thread for you...

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 11:28:21 EST
From: BLATZMAN@aol.com
Subject: red red red red red

Today I looked into what it takes for a film to break even.  The first place 
I looked basically confirmed everything I learned on the subject.  I admit 
I'm not the smartest person in the world, and I don't explain things very 
well.  Along with my horrible memory, it makes it hard for me to explain 
things.  So, since this list has been polluted with misinformation, I am 
posting an article on what it takes to break even at the box office.  Take 
note of certain subjects, such as :DOMESTIC BOX OFFICE DRIVES REVENUE IN ALL 
OTHER MARKETS.  That means it's next to impossible to turn a disasterous 
domestic box office run into a video goldmine.  Here is the article, delete 
this now is you are bored!!!!

18) When does a movie break even?

There are multiple answers to that question, and it differs for every
movie, not just because they had different production costs.  Assuming
we're talking about genuine profits (as would be recognized by most of
us), and not the contractual definitions that keep net profit
participants from collecting a cent on even the biggest grossing films,
here are some rules of thumb, and a few important exceptions.

First off, we're talking about major Hollywood films that are
distributed by the studio that made them.  That's important, because
the distributor takes a big cut off the gross.  If the distributor is
the same studio as produced the film, then, from an outsider's point of
view, it all ends up in the same pockets in the end.  If the film was
produced by someone else, then you have to lop off the distribution fee
before determining if the film was profitable.  Also, let's ignore for
the moment co-productions, and certainly ignore low budget independent
films.

The capsule answer, as a rough rule of thumb - if a film's domestic
gross equals its negative cost, it will be profitable.  Thus, for
example, if we accept a negative cost for "Titanic" of $200 million, a
US/Canada gross of $200 million would probably lead to a profit.

Now let's talk about why this is a reasonable rule of thumb, then why
it sometimes isn't.

Films make their money from three basic sources - domestic gross
(counting only the US and Canada), foreign gross (box office receipts
from everywhere else), and other sources.  The largest component of the
latter is video, but cable, pay-per-view, and broadcast sales are also
often significant, and lesser revenue streams like in-flight movies,
rentals to colleges and art houses, and others also chip in.  For
certain films, merchandising adds hugely to this figure.  For others,
it adds nothing.

Still speaking roughly, the current breakdown is that these three
revenue sources are approximately equal.  Not quite.  In the last
couple of years, foreign box office has slightly exceeded domestic, for
example.  And there are many exceptions, which I'll get to later.  But
for rough calculations, equality is around right.

There are other important considerations.  First, the costs usually
bandied about for making films are the negative costs.  The negative
cost of a film is the price paid from the moment the project was
thought of to the instant that the studio owns one complete, finished
negative of the movie.  There are still big bucks to pay for a major
Hollywood release, however.  The biggest bucks are for advertising and
distribution, with a significant cost to make all the prints.  (If you
put out 2000 prints, a not-uncommon run for a big film nowadays, at,
say, $10,000 a print, you can see it adds up.) Advertising and
distribution varies quite a lot.  People used to assume that the total
print and advertising costs for a big film were approximately equal to
its negative cost, but $100 million plus negative costs blew that
estimate out of the water.  I doubt if anyone ever spent $100 million
advertising a single film.  For a large scale film, $50 million for
prints, adevertising, and other distribution costs (like shipping 2000
really heavy sets of boxes containing the prints all over the country)
is not an unreasonable estimate.

A second consideration is that theaters take a share of the gross.
Again, things are complex.  The short rule of thumb is that the
theaters take half.  But the way the contracts actually work, the
theaters' cut is on a sliding scale, with the studio taking a much
larger percentage in early weeks, and the theaters gradually getting
more and more as the run continues.  Thus, the attendance pattern of a
film makes a big difference.  So far, "The Lost World" and "Men in
Black" have grossed in the same general ballpark, something like $250
million.  However, "The Lost World" made a vast amount of money in its
first week, and dropped off quickly, while "Men in Black" did very well
its first week, but has held audiences longer.  The distributor thus
ended up with more of the gross from "The Lost World" than from "Men in
Black."  Assuming you're not a professional or obsessive, live with the
50% estimate.

A third factor.  For many big films, there are gross profit
participants.  These folks, typically the really heavy hitters like
Steven Spielberg, Harrison Ford, and Michael Crichton, get a percentage
of all money collected by the distributor.  In some cases, the
contracts allow the distributors to deduct certain costs off the top,
in others they don't.  The dollars that go to gross profit participants
cannot fairly be considered as contributing towards the studio's
recoupment or eventual profit, since they don't get those dollars.  In
some cases, like "The Lost World," we're talking serious chunks of
revenue, perhaps 20% total or more.  Let's not worry about that, for
the moment, but don't forget it completely.

A fourth factor.  Foreign theaters keep a larger percentage of the
profits than US theaters.  So, while the foreign gross is slightly
larger than the domestic gross (averaged over all films), the domestic
box office still returns more dollars to the studios.  Also, the
distribution costs mentioned above only covered US distribution.
You'll need to advertise it in other countries, too, and perhaps even
come up with ad campaigns customized to each country.  More costs.
Overall, let's just factor everything here together and say that
studios end up with 50% of the foreign gross.  Not too accurate,
perhaps, but we'll balance it against an inaccuracy in the opposite
direction from other sources.

A fifth factor.  There are distribution costs associated with the
other, non-box-office revenue streams.  It costs something to stamp out
a videocassette, and to ship it to the store, and to advertise it.
Some of the other revenue streams have lesser costs (like selling to
cable), some have significant ones.  For airline screenings, you
typically have to recut the film, for example.  Let's again assign a
50% return of gross here.  It's probably a bit higher, but we'll
balance that against our earlier overestimation of foreign returns.

Finally, as a general rule the domestic box office is the engine that
drives the other revenues.  There are many exceptions, but foreign
gross and video sales (and other revenue streams) are largely
predictable given domestic gross.

OK, let's review the bidding.  The studio spent the negative cost plus
maybe $50 million on prints and advertising.  Speaking roughly, they'll
get 50% of each of the three reveune streams.  Roughly, again, that
means that for a $200 million negative cost film, they need to have
around $250 million roll in various doors before they've really shown a
profit.  Thus, if the film makes $500 million domestic, it's shown a
profit before any other revenues are considered.

For a bare profit, that $200 million film then has to return $85
million or so in domestic box office.  (Since that would translate to
another $170 million in money from other sources.)  $85 million + $170
million = $255 million, slightly above the $250 million negative plus
advertising plus distribution cost we'd estimated.  But, remember,
we're only getting half the money, so for an $85 million domestic
return, we need a $170 million gross.  That's not quite its negative
cost, but it's in the ballpark.  If you assume they'd have to spend
more on advertising such a big film, or you're going to strike a whole
lot more prints, the revenue requirement goes up a bit.

END OF ARTICLE

Like I clearly stated, Theaters are on a sliding scale and I'm not quite sure 
why Cappucino was surprised to hear that, since it is the most common way for 
a theater to strike a contract.

Also, Domestic Box Office returns, if I read this article correctly, CLEARLY 
incorporate the theaters share of money.  Reported Box Office figures DO 
include a theaters take.

Clearly then, Red Planets $25 Million Return on a 75 Million Dollar film 
spells disaster for the studio.  That is what is called a Loss.  This film 
will never be profitable.

Deal with it

By the way, you're just being argumentative and moronic when you say stupid 
things like "People saw this film on video first, so it shouldn't be up for 
and Academy Award".  The rules allow for this, and if you've ever been in an 
edit bay you'd understand why this is necessary.  A film needs to have it's 
first public perfomance in a theater.  Public performance is what drives the 
rule, and you know it, so don't be stupid.

Blatzman

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 09:10:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Viv Lyon <vivlyon@bitmine.net>
Subject: Re: gee, mike, there sure is a lot of skin in this movie!

On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Andrew D. Simchik wrote:

> I'm not going to take them less seriously as musicians, but then I'm not
> the sort of person who thinks you can't objectify yourself and still be
> respectable.

Well, here's the crux of the issue, then. Can a person be overtly sexy and
still retain all rights to personhood, up to and including being taken
"seriously," whatever on earth that means? You know, can a person be
angling for sexual attention and still be treated with respect, or is
sexuality so threatening and/or lame that anyone attempting a degree of
sartorial sexiness has automatically abdicated all rights to respect,
serious regard, etc.? 

I think the word 'objectify,' at least in the case we've been discussing,
is rather strong. A person who objectifies themselves asks to be treated
only as a sexual object. A person who dresses in a sexy manner asks to be
treated as a sexy _person_, not as an object. I'm mostly joking about my
next statement, but I think an adequate place to draw the line is
intentional nipple exposure and/or ass exposure. At that point, it might
be safely assumed that said person is asking to considered strictly on the
merits of their sexual signifiers- because those things are so distracting
that anyone looking at them, be they the most jaded libertines or the most
blushing ingenues, would have a hard time concentrating on anything but
their nipples/ass/sweatsock/et al.

A woman displaying cleavage is such a common sight that I don't believe
cleavage exposure merits the judgment that she's solely seeking sexual
attention and asking not to be taken seriously as an artist, person,
writer, speaker, autonomous individual, etc. 
 
Vivien

------------------------------

End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #354
*******************************