Community >> View Post
·
Post By
Trent Trueheart

In Reply To
Trent Trueheart

Subj: Re: Curious to your reasons
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:38:47 am EST
Reply Subj: Re: Curious to your reasons
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:32:29 am EST

Previous Post

> > Oh, in a perfect world, the more important your job is, the more you would make. In the grand scheme of things, writers aren't that important when compared to doctors, police, firefighters, teachers, etc. But we don't live in a perfect world and if the writers think they deserve more, they're more then welcome to fight for it. And I think they should get it because it doesn't sound like much.
> >
> It might not sound like much to you, but you aren't writing the checks. I'm not going to say if it is alot or it isnt, cause I simply don't know enough about the financial side to this to offer a real judgement.
>
> > > http://www.amptp.org/dollarsandsense.html has a lot of really cool information about the writers and the financial side to movies and television. Worth reading.
> >
> > Yeah, like I want to read their spin. 6 out of 10 movies never recoup their original investment? Sure, if you're talking about every movie ever made. These days though, between DVD sales and the international market, I really don't believe that.
>
> Ok, just offering up another side to this story. I'm sure the WGA isn't distorting facts at all.

Oh, I'm sure the WGA is distorting the facts, but let's face it, the studios have been at it a lot longer, and thus better at it.

>
> But look at Golden Compass, a recent movie flop. $250M budget, $60M in marketing, and will probably only make $150M in theater gross. Then the studio probably only gets half of that total gross. So right there, you are looking at the studio with a net loss of $235M.

The question is, could they have shot Golden Compass for less? I get that there's a lot of CGI and special effects in it, which there's not much you can do about. But there's also a lot of big names in it. Could those actors have been paid less or could they have gotten lesser known (and thus cheaper) actors? And let's face it, the more money you put into something, the less likely you are to see it again. You can't just throw money at the screen and expect it to be successful.

>
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE4DE1F3BF93BA15752C0A961948260 is a site with where the movie ticket money goes. I really just skimmed through it though to make sure my 50% goes to the studio thing was right.
>
> And I am completely aware that not all movies lose money, and you could easily offer up an example of the blockbuster to counterargue here.
>
> > Perhaps. The strike would have worked better had there not been rumors of it at least a year before it happened.
>
> The strike would have worked better if they just waited till the summer. Then they would have the SAG on their side, and most importantly, television writers wouldn't get upset.

I'm not understanding the last part of that.

>
> > > Well there is alot of things you have to take in here. I used the pro athletes as an example because they are in the entertainment field, and when they strike, its big news.
> > >
> > > I'm sure the average pro athlete has a very narrow window concerning the amount of years he has. I'm sure the total number of pro athletes is much smaller than the total number of people in the WGA. I'm not sure what is watched more, sports programs or scripted television, but I know that the television event of every year is the Super Bowl, with MNF being the most watched show every week its on.
> >
> > Eh, the Super Bowl being so highly rated is BS though. Yes a lot of people watch it, but a good chuck watch for the commercials, which is the most idiotic reason ever. And MNF is not the most watched show on television every week. It's the most watched show on cable. Dancing with the Stars, CSI and Grey's Anatomy all have more viewers.
>
> I knew that MNf was only the highest rated show on cable, my apologies for not putting that in there. You caught me and I apologize.
>
> But I just saw this. For the current TV season, I assume beginning in September, here are the most watched programs.
>
> 1) Patriots vs Giants
> 2) Patriots vs Colts
> 3) Patriots vs Steelers
> 4) Patriots vs Cowboys
> 5) Seasons premiere of CSI

1) Please show your work.
2) Is that Saturday's Pats/Giants game?
3) I heard about 25 million people watched said Pats/Giants game. Which means about 275 million people didn't.

>
> So I don't think you can say that sports don't get a high number of people watching. And to argue that the Super Bowl is only watched for commercials is wrong, I would think. People watch it because its the cumulation of a seasons of America's most watched sport. Commercials do get people to watch, but I would guess less that 10% watch only for the commercials.
>
>

I'm not saying that sports can't pull in big numbers, I'm saying that more people watch scripted television than sports. Meaning if you took a poll of the 300 million people living in the US, more people have watched at least one scripted show in the last week than a sports game.

As for the Super Bowl, I could have sworn I read something that said about 50% of the people watch simply for the commercials. Which still means a lot of people are watching for the game, just not as many as the ratings indicate.

- TT

> 3) I heard about 25 million people watched said Pats/Giants game. Which means about 275 million people didn't.

Ugh, I can't edit my post, but it should say about 35 million people watched, which means 265 million people didn't.

- TT


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.11 on Windows XP
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software