June 14, 1998 - December 31, 1998
For those of you who are interested in reform-substantiating information on the film
industry (and wish to proffer comments), you might visit "News and Commentary" from
time-to-time, which can be accessed here.
Discussion of reform issues will remain.
All else will be deleted.
:Lighten up John. Someone is posting under my name. Your site has :no way to protect
your identity.
Like John, I also hope this childish playing around stops. Both he and I have been
impersonated as well as others on this site and elsewhere.
As I said in an earlier post, it's one thing to use a "handle" or "pen name" on the Net, and
in fact this has been an acceptable long-time tradition on the Internet (and the Arpanet
before it), but it's not playing fair to impersonate another person's handle, (or worse, their
real name) especially when you are in the same discussion forum.
John may wish to know a poster's identity before he takes his time to answer them, and
that's fine. Whether you agree with him or not, if you want the benefits of debating views
with someone who has taken a considerable amount of time to study, not only film
history, but several areas at law, (probably more academic achievement than most), the
least you can do is be responsible and follow the simple guidelines that have been
established.
I don't see anything wrong with a person using a handle when they are communicating on
the Internet, because to me it's the view that is important, not the identity of the view.
However, I draw the line at impersonation of either handles or realnames.
We've been reasonably liberal up until now, but hereafter, anyone suspected of
impersonating will be deleted immediately. And lastly, if you want your post to stay
posted for the benefit of others, make sure it is dealing with the subject of film industry
reform, not (furthering) personal attacks or playing around.
The studios tie-up as many of the lawfirms around town as they
can so that they can create artificial conflicts of interest thus
inhibiting the ability of disgruntled (net) profit participants
to litigate. See http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/sue.htm for the details.
Mr. Pink
Once again deleted several posts of mine that WERE about issues
but just happened to disagree with them about those issues.
Cones and Jeager once again display their lack of any real desire
to communicate unless that communication fits in with their
prejudices.
Their attitude can best be translated as. "I can
call myself Goldenberg and talk to myself (to make these views
look more popular than they are), one of the Mr. Blanks is also
welcome to do so, as are certain other anonymous posters, because
THESE PEOPLE AGREE WITH US."
Those who disagree must use their real names and receive threats
from Mr. Cones.
Cones claims people have made no good points in the above posts.
Well, nonsense Mr Cones. JM has made substantive posts. I have
made substantive posts. One of the Mr. Blanks has made many good
posts too. All YOU want to hear is "Yes, it's the Jews". Anything
else is mysteriously not substantive enough for you. Recognize
your prejudice.
If this erroneous identification creates so much static, avoid
this issue. But you won't do that. Because, although you say it's
not a major issue for you what specific religion your "control
group" belongs to, it clearly is.
To talk as if Murdoch, Turner and Sony are not major players in
this interconnected industry is a farce and reveals that
prejudice is triumphing over any knowledge you may have. We need
distribution both inside and outside of cinemas. We need cable.
We need satellite. You want to ignore these phenomena because
their owners are not Jewish enough for you.
As JM has pointed out, there IS NO scientific basis for your
points. You begin with a prejudice, and - like the guy who saw
all these invisible Jewish names at the end of "Godzilla" - just
pick up on anything that affirms your prejudice. First thing you
have to prove to make your point is that these movies even have
or purvey a Jewish world view. They have no such thing.
Maybe movies DO have a liberal worldview, but liberalism is at
least more inclusive than conservatism, and an endemic problem
among artists anyway. (You want to legislate that 50% of all
artists should be Republicans?) If crap like "Godzilla" gets
made, the problem is NOT the Jewish influence, the problem is non-
Jewish artists who think their audience are morons.
Many of us DO see problems with the film industry, many of us DO
prefer movies made outside Hollywood, but because we don't see
those problems in the way you do you want to take your toys and
go home.
Unlike Usenet this is a moderated group anyway. You DO have the
power to delete. You even deleted the posts one of you ripped off
from misc.writing.screenplays. You admit you will delete posts
that you don't like in future. I guess what that means is that
only pseudonyms that agree with you will be permitted.
The point is your reform movement is going to fail. You have no
real actual substantive ideas about concrete actual moves that
could be taken. Neither of you. Mr. Blank wants Fundamentalist
Christians in the studios, the mythical Goldenberg wants ethnic
musical chairs. Jaeger (under his real name) and Cones make no
concrete suggestions whatsoever. I asked you for concrete
suggestions, I even asked you not to evade the issue, and you
denied that any point was made, and in standard Cones and Jaeger
style, evade the issue anyway.
In your dealing with the industry your attitude is "These guys
haven't played by my rules, so I am going to take my toys, sit in
my yard and call them nasty names. " In your dealing with this
newsgroup your attitude is EXACTLY THE SAME.
Of course, in the industry's case you also want the government to
come in and take the other kid's toys and share them out amongst
you. It ain't gonna happen.
I ask you to not get defensive, to think about what I've said,
and to wonder - just a little, how much your own attitudes have
contributed to the difficulties you find yourselves in, both on
this newsgroup and in the industry.
When I see a real desire for open debate I might contribute more.
Here, there is none.
Mr. Pink
:Discussion of reform issues will remain.
:
All else will be deleted.
:
:
:They've done it again.
:
:Once again deleted several posts of mine that WERE about issues
:but just happened to disagree with them about those issues.
:
:Cones and Jeager once again display their lack of any real desire
:to communicate unless that communication fits in with their
:prejudices.
Mr. Pink,
We do desire to communicate and discuss all aspects of the film
industry and we're sorry if anything you have placed on this site
(about the issues) you feel has been deleted unfairly. Please
feel free to re-post and we will leave it posted. In the past
week, this site was hit with over 45 posts that were just playing
around.
I ask you kindly, please just state your views, stop doing things
like calling us names or me Goldenberg, or speaking rudely to Mr.
Cones, or impersonating (if you HAVE been doing any of these
things) and please don't discuss anything that is not going to
help with the issue of reform.
We really do welcome your input and want to discuss it in a
civilized manner. Please point out specific language in John
Cones writings if you take issue with anything.
If you want to call yourself Mr. Pink, that's fine with me but
John Cones will probably not address your posts. I will if I can
and others may care to also.
Growth of Religious Diversity
A three-page article on the growth of religious diversity in the United States appeared
starting on page one of the Sunday edition of the Los Angeles Times (June 21, 1998) this
past weekend. Some of the factual information reported in that article has been posted
in the News and Commentary section of the FIRM site, and is accompanied by
observations tying such information into the topic of film industry reform.
Many of us DO see problems with the film industry, many of us DO prefer movies
made outside Hollywood, but because we don't see those problems in the way you
do you want to take your toys and go home.
Unlike Usenet this is a moderated group anyway. You DO have the power to
delete. You even deleted the posts one of you ripped off from
misc.writing.screenplays.
Yes, in all honesty, when we found that those posts were actually protected under
copyright, we did make sure they were deleted from our site immediately. We have no
intention of ripping anyone off or harming anyone, especially writers, and I want to relate
a sincere apology to anyone who may have felt threatened in any way.
You admit you will delete posts that you don't like in future.
No, you are misinterpreting my words here a little. I did not say I would deleted posts
that I "don't like in the future," I said I would delete posts that are not on the subject of
Film Industry Reform.
I guess what that means is that :only pseudonyms that agree with you will be
permitted.
No that is not correct. You know who you are talking to right now, Mr. Pink. I actually
have a pretty good idea who you are too, Mr. Pink, but that's okay if you don't want to
tell me, I am more interested in the quality of your considerations than in what body you
currently occupy and at what place on the surface.
The point is your reform movement is going to fail.
No, I'm sorry, this is not the inevitable out come of this. It may be, but it is still way too
early to predict yet. We have not even gone public with this reform movement yet. We
are so far only addressing you folks in the movie business in the hopes that you will see fit
to take responsibility for your industry before the rest of the country may have to. If you
feel that the issues John brings up regarding the control group and their specifications is
an issue you do not want to confront, fine don't deal with it, deal with other aspects of
the Industry. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. I will say this, the American
public may not care about net profit participation problems of a few people in a relatively
small industry, such as the movie industry, but they will care about the issues of violence
and control, once they know more about it.
You have no real actual substantive ideas about concrete actual moves that could
be taken. Neither of you.
That's not exactly true. I have posted suggestions about better ways of paying investors
and profit participants called Automatic Royalty Parsing. We are also working on
establishing video-on-demand and pay-per-view.com as alternative distribution systems.
I have dedicated the past 18 years to working on this problem. Let's talk about these
things.
Of course, in the industry's case you also want the government to come in and take
the other kid's toys and share them out amongst you. It ain't gonna happen.
Please show me where that was said, the government to come in.
I ask you to not get defensive, to think about what I've said, and to wonder - just a
little, how much your own attitudes...
Have you been offended personally in any way? You brought up the word "attitudes". If
so on what specific thing?
...have contributed to the difficulties you find yourselves in, both on this newsgroup
and in the industry.
If you think I will have any difficulties in the Film Industry because I have chosen to work
in reform of this industry, I think you are mistaken. I happen to know several studio
heads, many industry elders and one ex-supreme court judge who happen to agree with
most of the planks in this reform movement. The studio execs might jeopardize THEIR
jobs and have some "difficulties" if their identities were to be known in connection with
this agenda, but I have perfect confidence that this Industry will continue to treat me no
differently than it always has - and I have been involved with movies since 1962.
When I see a real desire for open debate I might contribute more.
That would be great. What would you define as more open debate?
Have you read any of the material posted at Background Information?
If so what?
If you are conducting, intend to conduct, or have conducted any
research relating to the U.S. film industry, regardless of whether the results of such
research tends to confirm or contradict any statements made on this FIRM site, or such
research relates to other issues altogether, we at FIRM would be interested in knowing
about your research.
Since it's so quiet around here, I thought I'd give you some books you can read by the
pool.
A couple of new reports came out this week relating to the progress or lack thereof of
minorities in Hollywood. Brief excerpts from the reports and comments are provided in
the News and Commentary section of the FIRM site.
A new article about several of the film industry net profit lawsuits appeared in the August
1998 issue of the California Lawyer magazine. A few brief quotes from the article along
with some comentary have now been posted in the News and Commentary section of
the FIRM site.
During this past year after I decided to go public with my research and analysis regarding
what is really going on in Hollywood, one contingent among the so-called Hollywood
apologists have consistently clamored that it is not appropriate to say anything, even if
true, about the shared religious, cultural and political backgrounds of most of the top
level Hollywood studio executives. On the other hand, these same Hollywood apologists
seem to take no offense at the use of one of the 20th century's most powerful
communications media (the feature film) by these same studio executives to consistently
defame (i.e., consitently portray in a negative or stereotypical manner) millions of Latinos,
Arabs, Italian-Americans, Christians and Whites from the South, for decades. In
addition, these film "makers" have never hesitated to use that same powerful medium to
consistently project their liberal and non-religious points of view, along with other
powerful messages about race, religion, culture, ethnicity, regional populations and so
forth onto an unsuspecting movie-going public. What's wrong with this picture?
John Cones
A new speech entitled What's Really Going On In Hollywood, parts of which were
delivered this past week to an audience in Washington, D.C. is now posted under the
"Background Information" section of the FIRM Site.
John Cones
I have noticed that the Hollywood movie industry, especially the
MPAA studios and the networks, including PBS, are increasingly
trying to ligitimize homosexuality.
This is another example of how the movie industry - being
controled by an a-religious and incestious group for so long -
just can't see certain truths anymore, let alone greenlight
movies about same.
After 400 million years of procreative trial and error, the
genetic entity of the human race would never build into the
genome any command-genes that would validate homosexuality on a
physiological level. Therefore, homosexuality is learned
behavior, ipso facto, and is being promulgated by the
"mainstream" Hollywood establishment as a "normal or acceptable
life-style" deserving of the same rights as heterosexuals.
Hogwash:
I resent the movie industry propagandizing my children to give
them the idea that it is okay or normal to be gay or lesbian when
this is clearly human aberration at its most destructive to the
future of the race.
Since the kids are one of the largest moviegoing groups - it is
parents' responsibility to make sure none of their money, in the
form of allowances, finds its way into the boxoffice of any of
the studio (or independent) releases until they stop useing the
feature motion picture as a vehicle for ligitimizing
homosexuality.
Recent developments regarding the progress, or lack thereof, of Latinos in Hollywood
was recently reported in the July-August, 1998 issue of Hispanic Business. Brief
excerpts from the article and commentary appear in the News and Commentary section
of the FIRM site.
John Cones
"Furthermore, the bank had gained interlocking directorates with ABC. In 1974,
Congress issued a report, stating that the Chase Manhattan Bank's stake in CBS rose
14.1 %, and in NBC to 4.5 % (through RCA, the parent company of NBC). The same
report said that the Chase Manhattan Bank held stock in 28 broadcasting firms. After
this report, the Chase Manhattan Bank obtained 6.7 % of ABC, and today the
percentage could be much greater. It only requires 5 % of ownership, to significantly
influence the media (Reference 25, P.56-57). This is only one ,of the 300 wealthy,
shareholders of the FED. It is believed, other FED owners have similar holdings in the
media. To control the media, FED bankers call in their loans, if the media disagrees with
them (Reference 25, P. 134-137)."
Source:
http://www.cal-neva.com/frb/page04.htm
:Saturday June 27, 1998 :Restore the original oligarchial studio system of the 20's :30's,
and 40's by allowing studios to purchase their own :cinemas. It worked once and it can
work again.
I have always felt it was unfair to the studios to have their exhibition wings cut off. I'm
reasonably sure part of the distribution problem we are seeing manifest today is to make
up for the loss of income the studios suffered when they lost exhibition.
As soon as the studios lost control over their point-of-sale theatrical revenue, cash flow
became less predictable hence employment for writers, directors and acting talent, and
everyone else, became much more ad hoc.
In my opinion, this long-ago government intervention in free enterprise caused a negative trickle-down effect all the way to Garrison v. Warner.
I'm not saying we should go back to the old studio system, but aspects of it DID seem to
work better than the "system" we have today. Some sort of a mid-ground might be an
optimum balance for management and talent.
In a world of FAIR distribution, the very people responsible
for creating and financing
independent motion pictures from sources OUTSIDE the film industry, would be held in higher regard.
Unfortunately, as Lee Garmes and the
ISPA pointed out EARLY (and as countless other victims
(through their law suits) and
researchers with the courage to speak out (such as John
Cones) have pointed out
LATELY -- this is NOT the way it is in Hollywood at all,
Today.
When you buy a movie ticket at a box office, for let's say
$8 (to use a round number),
the movie theater (the Exhibitor) immediately takes about
60% of this $8 (known as the
"Box Office Gross") and turns over $3.20 to the
studio/distributor who released the
movie. Many times the movie theater is fully or partially,
directly or indirectly, owned by
the studio/distributor.
THEN, the studio/distributor charges its "distribution fee"
of about 33% against this
$3.20 leaving $2.14 from the $8 ticket sale.
The studio/distributor then reimburses itself out of this
$2.14 for anything it spent on
prints and advertising (P&A), and all other expenses relating to distribution, for the movie. This is an area
where distributors have
traditionally inflated their costs and is usually where any
cashflow back to the producers
and production financiers stops dead. If the expenses amount to "only" 20% and such 20% is charged against this $2.14, a whopping $1.71 would be all that's left. This means that from the $8 ticket sale, $1.71 is now available to turn over to the
Production Company, provided the studio/distributor does not
ALSO have participation
rights in this sum as well, reducing such cashflow to zero.
This $0.00 to $1.70 is what is
known as "Points" or, in certain circumstances, known as "Producer's Net" (or, as Eddie Murphy
called it in connection with
the Buchwald v. Paramount suit, "Monkey Points").
The Production Company, thankful that it has received its
Monkey Points, now has to
split them (that $1.71) with its film production Investors,
usually 50-50. So, wow, that
leaves a whole $.86 for all you
Producers/Writers/Director/Talent/Dev Investors AND
$.86 for all you Production Investors, from that original
$8.00 ticket!
The Investors, who BELIEVED in the Production Company (and
who may have believed in promoting culture as well) enough to
finance the movie (and who may have
millions invested), go away praying that these little puny
chunks of $.86-here and
$.86-there will someday add up to (recoup) their total
multi-million dollar investment
(plus a reasonable return on investment) at the very
least.
As mentioned above, The Production Company, now gets to pay
its producers from this
$.86 for the years of hard work they put in (as many as 10);
and they get to pay back
any sums deferred by the Cast or Crew and lastly; they get
to pay back the
Development Investors, those gutsy people that put up THE
VERY EARLIEST
MONEY (probably to put a few sandwiches in the refrigerators
of a starving writer and
producer) -- yet don't get paid back until NOW, if at
all.
The above scenario is EXTREMELY optimistic and, pursuant to
John Cones’ research
(explicated in vast detail in his book,
The Feature Film Distribution Deal) "The truth is
that only about 5% of the major studio/distribution deals
actually result in the payment of
net profits to anyone, regardless of how much money the film
makes (that's the best
estimate of a profit participation auditor who is out there
on the front lines every day
auditing the studio books)."
Thus my estimate of $.86 per ticket is exactly $.86 too high
in 95% of the cases, and
significantly high in most of the other 5% of the cases.
THIS is Today's basic Distribution Paradigm. This is the
"PLAN" the current
studio/distributor-driven movie industry has waiting for YOU
(as an independent
producer, writer, director, actor or investor).
Whether or not, the advent of digital delivery requires less
energy be
expended, i.e., money, to move matter around on the planet's
surface (i.e., truck cans of 2,000-ft
reels of 35mm motion picture film: that action of a
studio/distributor) - is not the reason
why a new paradigm is needed.
In Today's Distribution Paradigm above, each level of the
marketing chain,
from exhibitor to distributor to producer to development
financiers has the opportunity to
"divert" or "siphon-off" money before turning it over to the
next group. I don't like to use the word "steal" because we
usually reserve this word for people who DON'T have the money to
afford $250 per hour accountants and lawyers.
Today's system of studio-type distribution is based on the
unwritten word: YE WHO
GETS THE GOLD FIRST, GETS TO POCKET THE GOLD FIRST.
Thus, those who created and financed the works of filmic art
get the gold LAST, if at all,
because all the people who truck and futz and display the
films are in the equation FIRST
and hence in a position to levy charges for THEIR
"invaluable services" against the
newborn cashflow, a cashflow generated by the filmmakers'
ability to thrill audiences.
Of course the bloated industry of studio/distributor
executives, truckers, exhibitors,
boxers, popcorn sellers, postal service delivery boys,
building maintenance crews for
marketing strategy teams and the thousands of screen credits
you DON'T see on the tail
of a movie (thank god), will NOT agree with any paradigm
other than the current one.
Their view is, it takes MUCH more "skill" to market a movie
than it does to "produce"
one... AND this is unfortunately TRUE, probably, because
today's movies are so POOR
and UNORIGINAL - it DOES take marketing GENIUS to RAM all
this "lousy" (i.e.,
remake, sequel, violence-oriented, exploitation) product
down the public's throat.
Under a FAIR system of distribution, one where more of the
creators were supported
and validated, (not just 100 over-paid stars and executives
in Hollywood) something
unheard of might happen: more original, better-made, more
creative pictures might be
produced and they would SELL THEMSELVES through
word-of-mouth (the most
natural, hence powerful, advertising "technique" known to
Humankind).
In other words, if starving filmmakers the world over, were
not being robbed by Today's
Distribution Paradigm, they might be able to spend more time
making movies of higher,
more original, quality - than having to pump out more of the
same SAFE stuff to please
their slave-master, studio executives' thinking, thinking
based in the rationale that they (the
executives) GENERALLY can't afford to take chances on
"unproven" concepts or
talents, because the costs of distribution are SO high.
Their justifier. ;- ) Hence all the
people in the above line up, "must" be in place, hence all
these people preempt the
cashflow as they get their hands on the GOLD first.
This is part of the rationale behind Today's Distribution
Paradigm: Everybody is
The New Paradigm - WHEN
A New
Distribution Paradigm is based on the change of two major
factors in Today's
Distribution Paradigm (as explicated in two previous posts):
A) WHEN everyone gets paid; and,
WHEN:
Since it is clear that everyone connected with exhibition or
distribution or production of a
movie feels that THEIR contribution to the "thrill of an
audience" is most important, all
will feel their justifications for getting their hands on
the newborn cashflow from first
dollar are valid.
So, rather than argue forever about this, why not PAY
everyone from first dollar. This
would never have been possible in Lee Garmes' day, but now
with computers,
credit/debit cards, electronic banking and the internet, it
is quite possible.
Just think, Writers, Producers, Talents and Development
Investors, no one (having the
opportunity to siphon) would get THEIR hands on the GOLD
before YOU. Just think
Distributors and Exhibitors and Truckers, you STILL will get
paid your fair share, only
sooner and without ANY temptations connected with touching
the cashflow. :-)
Once all parties in the production/distribution/exhibition
chain agree on WHAT everyone
should get, modern electronics can make it instantaneous to
wire-transfer these sums
directly, AND SIMULTANEOUSLY, into bank accounts of the TWO
camps in the
movie industry: the Creative Camp and the Business Camp.
First dollar, from a ticket
sale or the click of a button on the Internet, can be
transferred to a "film revenue collecting and allocations agent"
who is a type of escrow agent we'll refer to as a "Parsing
Agent." This phrase has been coined from the word "parsing" as
such is used in CGI/Perl scripts which control/direct the flow of
data (such as inputs, emails and credit card numbers) on the
world wide web. This Parsing Agent will
immediately divide the sum of money authorized on a credit
card authorization for the purchase of a movie in accordance with
the new distribution paradigm and transfer each agreed-on sum to
all parties, in both camps, who built and marketed the movie.
Thus all will be effectively paid out of first dollar
gross.
This is the first, and most important, part of the New Distribution
Paradigm.
The New Paradigm - WHAT
WHAT:
Forgetting some of the mechanics for now, if one can agree
with the basic philosophy
that the distribution and display of a product is NOT more
important than the
CREATION of that product, but actually less important . . .
then part two of a proposed
New
Distribution Paradigm may make sense.
As we saw in previous posts, Today's Distribution Paradigm
provides that from an $8
ticket sale, the people who create a movie end up with about
$1.71 (if they are the lucky 5%)
and the people who distribute/exhibit that same movie end up
with about $6.29. About a 20/80 split.
Thus Today's Paradigm is a reversal of the above philosophy
and a reversal of what
reality could BE, especially in a digital and electronic
Era.
From the first dollar of an electronically parsed "ticket"
sale, and especially from an
electronically delivered movie with Automaticly
Parsed Royalties
certainly no more than 50% of the ENERGY (money)
earned should be allocated, directly or indirectly, to the
distribution/exhibition of that
product. In fact it should be no more than about half of
even this, or 25%, a little less
that the 30%-distribution fee generally levied by Today's
Distribution Paradigm. This
would leave 75% for the production-side of the equation and
25% for the distribution/exhibition-side.
In other words, in a digital Era, the people who distribute
and exhibit a movie should
ultimately receive 25% of the ticket price. The people who
develop and produce that
movie should receive 75% because these people are the source
point and creators of
the product; they are more important than the distributors
and exhibitors of that product
because without them, there would be no movie distributors or
exhibitors, and no jobs for all the
other service industries (film, processing/printing labs,
camera and light rentals, post houses, completion guarantors,
film offices, etc.).
The creators of a movie also create the jobs for the
distributors and the exhibitors as
well. In other words, NO MOVIECREATORS = NO DISTRIBUTORS,
TRUCKERS OR EXHIBITORS because there is NO movie in
existence.
Thus, the New Distribution
Paradigm calls for, after all the dust and futzing settles,
the
people who develop, package and produce movies to have 75%
of the cashflow
generated from audience excitement and the people who
distribute and exhibit movies to
have 25% of the cashflow generated from audience excitement.
A 75/25 split, not a 20/80 (or more probably, a 00/100) split as in Today's Distribution
Paradigm.
Also, 25% rather than a 33% distribution fee because movies
can now be "simply" highly-ordered
arrangements of bits, rather than 2,000-foot reels of silver
halide ions and hence can be
"distributed" with a flow of electrons rather than a flow of
trucks.
And, forgetting some more of the mechanics for now, if
one can agree with the basic
philosophy that the ENERGY to build a product prototype
(each feature is a prototype
because it is a unique creation, a debatable statement with
all the remakes these days)
equal to the KNOW-HOW in creating that product . . . then
part two of a proposed
New
Distribution Paradigm may make more continued sense.
In other words, the people that provide the ENERGY to build
a movie: the money, the
finances, the funds, the guarantees, the budget,
the-what-ever-you-want-to-call-it, as
opposed to the people that KNOW HOW to build it, the
producers, the writers, the
directors the actors, the production managers and First
Assistant Directors are equally
important. A pile of dead energy, (i.e., dollar bills
sitting around) will simply evaporate into
the hands of frauds and flakes unless it is spent into
KNOW-HOW and managed
efficiently.
Therefore the New Paradigm posits that the investors
connected collectively with the
development, production, distribution or exhibition of a
movie, are JUST as important as
the people who bring it all off, those KNOW-HOW people from
BOTH Camps,
creative and business.
Thus 50% from every dollar collected from a newborn cashflow
should go to Investors,
especially those Investors who believed in the creation of
the movie the earliest when
there was the least TANGIBLE evidence of a possible success.
Thus the New Distribution Paradigm's WHAT-aspect is that
100% of the cashflow
generated from first dollars is AUTOMATICALLY,
SIMULTANEOUSLY and
IMMEDIATELY parsed as follows:
Development/Packaging/Production/Financiers get 75%
Of the 75%:
Of the 25%:
Once the Financiers have received 200% return on their
investment (or x% return on investment), the creators and distributors of the movie have paid
everyone back substantially for
use of their ENERGY and now should NOT have to continue to
pay more.
This is the proposed New Distribution
Paradigm: Everyone gets automatically paid at the
same time, from first dollar gross such sums that are more
in line with each element's
overall contribution to the "excitement of the audience."
What Filmmakers, Talent or Investors would want to continue
to support Today's
Distribution Paradigm if a New Distribution
Paradigm such as the one postulated (not only
by MEC, and others, but by Lee Garmes and the former-ISPA) is possible?
I would like to hear
from you if you are out there.
It's too bad this year's independent film scene is even worse
than last years - but is anybody supprised?
I'm not. Seems to me that between the Canadian exchange rate and
the MPAA studio/distributors the Independent Film Scene is pretty
much dead on arrival. Don't say the research at the FIRM site
didn't warn you.
Well, there are plenty of jobs still available at McDonnalds,
and there's nobody who knows how to creatively direct a hamburger
into a bun better than an ex-filmmaker or screenwriter.
Joe Goldenberg
The question of who controls the Hollywood film industry by
"race" is something that bothers us. Whether jewish, christian,
liberal, or conservative makes no difference. Members of the
"human race" are in control, and noting otherwise smacks of
racial degredation. If humans and dolphins were simultaniously
in control, and there was a push to make more underwater films,
We would say there might be a problem. But because humans are as
diversified as they are, we think that variety of thought is a
rather healthy thing.
To suggest that jews, or any other people of like beliefs,
conspire to push out others from a particular industry so that
only they can control it, is nothing more than a racial slur.
How could anyone hope to reform something when they are so busy
hating thier fellow beings?
Lisa&Tim Weedn
It seems to me that as soon as all the Hollywood apologist writers over at
misc.writing.screenplays realized that they were making fools of themselves by posting a
whole lot of Nazi-type slurs on the FIRM web site (See
How Hollywood Handles
Dissent), they realized all too late that they could be shown as the bigots they are by
providing such slurs for possible use in future publications.
Ever since, they have been quietly pecking away to each other over their tiny little
industry grapevine to keep quiet:
And so it goes. Hollywood takes responsibility for not only failing to reform itself, but
uses false cries of anti-Semitism, as usual, to justify its laziness and placate its fear of the
entrenched studio system that could care less about their well-being in the first place.
Sara Lilly
Lisa & Tim:
It is shocking to see that some people can read what is posted here at the FIRM site and
come away with so many false impressions, conjured in their own minds for whatever
reasons, but not by what is actually written here. For example, no where on this site do
we talk about "Jews" generally. No where on this site do we suggest that anyone in
Hollywood is conspiring to push others out. No where on this site is there any
expression of hatred directed toward any other human being or group. And finally,
please review your own understanding of what it means to be Jewish. My understanding
is that it involves religious and/or cultural matters, not race at all. Thus, your suggestion
that something written at the FIRM site is a "racial slur" is pure nonsense. On the other
hand, if you feel it is inappropriate to study and determine the backgrounds of those who
have occupied the top executive positions at the major Hollywood studios for the last 90
years and to factually demonstrate a positive correlation between prejudice among those
individuals and the screen portrayals of African-Americans, Asians, Hispanics, women,
Christians, Muslims, Arabs and others through one of the 20th century's most powerful
communications media (i.e., feature films), we'll just have to respectfully disagree. After
all, it is clear that movies do tend, to a large extent, to mirror the values, interests, cultural
perspectives and prejudices of their makers. Happy New Year!
John Cones
News and Commentary
James Jaeger
6:24 pm Thursday June 14,
1998
Issues
James Jaeger
3:04 pm Friday June 19, 1998
Handles vs Impersonation
James Jaeger
4:16 pm Friday June 19,
1998
Engineered Conflicts of Interests
Joe Goldenberg
6:40 pm Friday June 19,
1998
re: Issues
7:07 pm Friday June 19, 1998
They've done it again.
re: Issues
James Jaeger
7:45 pm Friday June 19, 1998
Growth of Religious Diversity
John Cones
2:36 pm Monday June 22,
1998
re: Some of Your Specific
Points
James Jaeger
2:38 pm Thursday June 25,
1998
Film Industry Research
John Cones
11:53 am Friday June 26, 1998
Summer Reading
James Jaeger
8:10 pm Wednesday July 1, 1998
Minorities in Hollywood
John Cones
12:47 pm Thursday July 16, 1998
Net Profits Lawsuits
John Cones
1:11 pm Saturday August 8, 1998
What's Wrong With This
Picture?
John Cones
1:28 pm Saturday August 8,
1998
New Speech on Hollywood
John Cones
6:09 pm Saturday August 8,
1998
Studios Ligitimizing
Homosexuality
Sara Lilly
2:44 pm Wednesday August 12,
1998
Latinos in Hollywood
John Cones
1:01 pm Sunday August 16, 1998
Interlocking Directorates
James Jaeger
4:56 pm Tuesday August 18,
1998
Effects of Loss of
Exhibition
James Jaeger
5:32 pm Thursday August 20,
1998
Distribution Paradigms - Today & Proposed
James Jaeger
4:56 pm Tuesday December 19,
1998
Rationale for Today's Paradigm
fighting for first dollar, because THEY "deserve it
more."
B) WHAT everyone gets paid.
Distribution/Exhibition/Financiers get 25%
Producers, Writers, Directors, Talent & Crew get 50%
Development, Packaging & Production Financiers get 50%
Distributors, Labs, Newspapers, Exhibitors get 50%
Distribution, Advertising and Exhibition Financiers get 50%
AND EVERYBODY PAYS FOR EXPENSES CONNECTED WITH THEIR
SERVICES, THEIR SIDE OF THE PARADIGM I.e.,
expenses are not endlessly "slipped in" or "charged to" everyone
else's segment in the manufacturing/marketing process, as is done Today. Why should the producers have to pay for all of the
marketing people's prints, advertizements and transportation
expenses, especially when they are the ones that have
jurisdiction over those expenses and may even over-order or pad
their budgets thus killing the cash flow completely just to keep
"their people" paid first?
Independent Film - DOA
Joe Goldenberg
5:06 am Wednesday December
23, 1998
Ethnic Slurs
Lisa--&--Tim Weedn
4:16 pm Friday December 25, 1998
VisionCraft Productions
Trim Bin Writers
Sara Lilly
4:33 pm Monday December 28, 1998
APOLOGIST WRITER
Shhhhh, don't post anything more
on the FIRM site.
WOULD-BE WRITER TOO
Why not?
APOLOGIST WRITER
They might put it in a book.
Then the whole world would not only
know that we write trite, formula
kiss-the-executives-ass-type
screenplays, but that we're
also moron bigots.
WOULD-BE WRITER TOO
Oh, okay. Thanks for telling me.
I don't want to reform anything
anyway.
re: Ethnic Slurs
John Cones
1:39 pm Thursday December 31, 1998
| Dialogs |
Discussion Forum & Archives |
Press Releases |
| Research |
Help F.I.R.M. |
Bookstore |