Beck's movie is a big flop (McCain, interview, environmentalists, solution)

[janelle144]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgpwOmVTvkw&NR=1

Another hick. EKKKK a black man who is conservative---he must not exist----must be a mirage. LOL

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA

And what sentence came before that? Something about "stating the obvious", I believe. Let me just scroll back... Well, lookee:

Lets review my FULL statement, shall we?

Originally Posted by pghquest

I hate to be the one to point out the obvious.. If the movie by Moore, only grossed $14M, then its most likely it was not profitable due to advertising and distribution costs, which can far outweigh the cost of production. Moore most likely didnt lose though on the deal, he often doesnt keep the distribution rights, and sells them off to guarantee him a profit before production begins.

Wow, selective reading ha? I pointed out that obviously, it was most likely.. Do you know what most likely means?

Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA

Yes. My end-of-year bonus is directly linked to how well my employer's movies do. I have a vested interest, so to speak.

So your company is involved in advertising and promoting movies? Great, then you can indeed provide us with advertising costs right? I see how you havent provided them here, but expect us to take your word..

Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA

You probably should've gone slower. Where on Earth did you get 14.2 million as expenses? Could it be that you don't understand what "haul" means? Your cite uses 14.2M instead of 14M, but it's the same figure - "haul" means box office gross - and you're subtracting one from the other. Sorry, that's not even wrong.

Indeed you are right here, the math was wrong.. Lets go slower
$14.2M - 45% (the average % that makes it back to the studios) - $6M production costs, (per your admission, probably production costs) = $390,000 left for advertising costs. There isnt a chance Moore spent less than this on advertising considering the costs of running tv ads.. This = a loss..

Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA

Your cite gives an $8M figure going back to the studio, and I'll gladly admit that's not impressive. Would've been a struggle to break even, and there certainly wouldn't have been much of an ROI. But as movies go, that's not even close to being a disaster.

The movie will turn into profitability once it goes to DVD format, but then the discussion wasnt about Moores movie being a disaster, it was to dispute Becks, possible non disaster..

Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA

Did you read the thread? I made fun of "An American Carol" as an(other) example of rightwingers getting their ass handed to them in the movie theatre marketplace. Mr. Joshua cited Capitalism as a counterexample. I explained to the veteran of Jericho why Carol (short for "An American Carol") was a financial disaster way above and beyond Capitalism, which is when you decided to join the fracas. You're welcome.

This one I'm really trying hard to connect the dots on.. your connecting that "Capitalism" was a success, was that you compared it to sales of another movie? Thats odd because you first want to compare Becks show, a non-movie, to Capitalism, as if they have any comparison, and now you are trying to compare it to "An American Carol", a movie that obviously wasnt advertised very well because I've never heard of it.

I guess your another one of those liberals who have to prove how fabulous "your man" (i.e. Moore) is by showing how poorly some other non- movie did for a one night performance. If thats how you decide success/failure, then its no wonder you dont want to discuss figures.

Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA

Actually, reels are still extensively shipped. Digital projection equipment isn't cheap and moviehouse projectors are written off over decades.

The IRS allows business equipment to be written off as a capitalized expense over a course of several years. Companies can spread the capitalized expenses out over decades, but thats by choice.

Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA

But more to the point, there's a hell of a difference in requirements between the sort of link needed to download a digital image for later viewing as compared to the feed needed for real-time cinema-quality audio and video. For your basic download, you just need bandwidth. For live feeds, you can't afford frame loss nor jitter.

A standard DSL is sufficient (albeit a business line) for a Beck performance because you are not encrypting data, nor is it a 2 way communication. Its similar to watching a Youtube video. I run polymom video conferencing equipment here, with a standard business line without issues. I've ran into issues when doing a video conference, and a phone conversation at the same time, but this is because I'm then uploading multiple streams at once. A Beck presentation only requires downloading speeds, not uploading, thereby a dedicated cable line would be more than sufficient.

Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA

Citing facts not in evidence.

I bet you think movie theaters are running their credit card lines on phone lines..

Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA

I am impressed that you've maneuvered to "ZERO costs involved", seeing as your initial take (post 61) was this:

Originally Posted by pghquest
I'm sure its not cheap to rent out 500 movie theaters all at the same time..

I guess you dont know the difference between RENT, and costs.

btw, other stories show that Beck had some theaters sold out, others had 70 people, and others had 94-170 seats..

Exclusive: Beck’s movie bombs in New York, Boston — and Washington, D.C. | Raw Story (http://rawstory.com/2009/12/glenn-beck-christmas-sweater-movie-flops-big-cities/ - broken link)

[janelle144]

I'm not sure if people want to see Beck tell about his Christmas story as much as they want to hear him speak on politics. Beck and O'Reilly are doing a tour together soon and it is sold out. They will be discussing politics and people are use to hearing them do that and want to see them in person.

[Vincent Vega]

I don't know about this movie, but 4 of 5 of Beck's books are on the New York Times Top 10, and the 5th is on the Top 40 list.

[Dane_in_LA]

This is getting silly.

Originally Posted by pghquest

Lets review my FULL statement, shall we?

Wow, selective reading ha? I pointed out that obviously, it was most likely..

Obviously.

So your company is involved in advertising and promoting movies?

You could say that, yes.

Great, then you can indeed provide us with advertising costs right? I see how you havent provided them here, but expect us to take your word..

I've no clue as to the marketing budget of Capitalism.

Indeed you are right here, the math was wrong.. Lets go slower
$14.2M - 45% (the average % that makes it back to the studios) - $6M production costs, (per your admission, probably production costs) = $390,000 left for advertising costs.

That probably should be minus 55%, but be that as it may - yeah, point conceded. It depends on production costs, but Capitalism probably lost money.

The movie will turn into profitability once it goes to DVD format, but then the discussion wasnt about Moores movie being a disaster, it was to dispute Becks, possible non disaster..

This one I'm really trying hard to connect the dots on.. your connecting that "Capitalism" was a success, was that you compared it to sales of another movie?

No. I made fun of "An American Carol", another right-wing production that didn't fill theatres. Mr Joshua countered with "Capitalism". I pointed out (correctly) that "An American Carol" left the investors much worse off - and although my estimate on Capitalism was off, that remains the point.

Thats odd because you first want to compare Becks show, a non-movie, to Capitalism

Kee-rist. No. I brought up "An American Carol", and do I ever regret it... Mr. Joshua brought up Capitalism. I posted that I have little use for Moore, but that there's no comparison between those two movies in terms of economic performance, which happens to be true.

The IRS allows business equipment to be written off as a capitalized expense over a course of several years. Companies can spread the capitalized expenses out over decades, but thats by choice.

The latter is pretty much the case. Projection equipment is expensive enough that cinemas expect to have use of it for decades - 30 years is not unusual. So yes, there's still 70's equipment in use, complete with reels. (I've had the pleasure of watching one of my employers' pre-war models in operation. Arc lamps - beautiful technology.)

A standard DSL is sufficient (albeit a business line) for a Beck performance because you are not encrypting data, nor is it a 2 way communication.

If you try to run a cinema-quality presentation across DSL, you deserve to sell 17 tickets per night. (Incidentally, you may not be encrypting data, but in using DSL, you'll definitely need to compress - which gives you much the same issues in terms of CPU requirements on the endpoints.)

Its similar to watching a Youtube video.

Inasmuch as both involve moving pictures, yes. That's where the similarity ends.

I run polymom video conferencing equipment here, with a standard business line without issues. I've ran into issues when doing a video conference, and a phone conversation at the same time, but this is because I'm then uploading multiple streams at once.

Funny, so do I. Well, Polycom, but... About 40 of them, with a Codian IP gateway setup to save on line costs. Compression artifacts galore and voice/picture lag - but it works well enough for its purpose, in glorious NTSC. Not something I'd put on a cinema screen. (We're getting Cisco Telepresence in 2010. Nice.)

Cinema quality? DCI 2K, (2048x1080) at 24 fps and compressed can squeak in at about 9 Mb/sec. Go much lower than that, and you're giving people a glorified TV channel.

(Your phonecalls probably go bad because your QoS is off. A G.711 call only takes 64 Kbps (payload) BW, nothing to shake your average DSL speed.)

A Beck presentation only requires downloading speeds, not uploading, thereby a dedicated cable line would be more than sufficient.

"Thereby"? Last-mile bandwidth is the last of your concerns. Upstream bottlenecks, with jitter and dropped packets, will mess you up. Not a problem for downloading content ahead of time, but very noticeable in real time. If you have respect for your simulcast audience, you'll want a dedicated link.

I bet you think movie theaters are running their credit card lines on phone lines..

Ehm - computer networks in media/entertainment is sorta what I do. As it happens, I am currently nursing a point-of-sale network through the credit-card audit (PCI, for those masochistic enough. It sucks.)

I guess you dont know the difference between RENT, and costs.

Equipment rental isn't part of the production costs? That'll surprise a lot of event arrangers.

Drop it. 17 tickets sold, even at $20, will not make anyone a profit. Unless he talked hapless cinema owners into sharing the risk, which doesn't really change anything - somebody still lost money.

[wade52]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Hence the reason I prefaced my posting with "probably". Do you know the difference between my "probably" claim, and your claim which "it was a flop"...

One is wrong, (i.e. yours) and one could be true, (i.e. mine)

You posted your "clue" as if it was fact, just like a typical liberal. Pretend things are true, even though you dont have a darn clue as to what type of business arrangement Beck had.

So your telling me that all of the advertisments which claimed Beck was charging $20 a ticket, are not true? Another one of your fabricated claims. Do you have any supporting documents to now disprove the price of the ticket, and the numbers in attendance? We also have stories claiming attendance, are you now claiming the authors of those stories cant count to 17?

My point is/was that you dont have a clue if it was a "flop", per your claim and then your admission.

Oooh no, my deep emotional investment is proving you and other liberals move your mouth, (or precisely your fingers) and make stupid claims that you cant backup. This becomes especially humorous when you admit you cant back up these claims, but continue to bump the thread anyways to prove your own ignorance.

Um, sure, Its really unfortunately for me, that you claim its a flop, as if I somehow had a financial stake in the success/failure of a Beck presentation. Thanks for holding me in such high esteem, but I assure you that your flattery is unfounded and uncalled for on this issue..

I never used the word "we"..

You're the most desperate poster on this forum.

[Rickers]

I just don't get all the fascination that so many people have with Glen Beck or Sara Palin. They are just a couple of people who express their ideas. If anyone doesn't like them fine, don't listen, or buy the books or watch the movie. Who the heck cares ? If either one decides to run for some public office then you can either vote for them or not vote for them but way too many seem to think that trash talking and name calling will somehow convince the people who like these very conservative two are in some way evil demagogues. The only explanation I can come up with is that far left liberal types are scared to death of these two. While some people call them "idiots" and they are laughing all the way to the bank.

[Old Gringo]

Originally Posted by rickers

I just don't get all the fascination that so many people have with Glen Beck or Sara Palin. They are just a couple of people who express their ideas. If anyone doesn't like them fine, don't listen, or buy the books or watch the movie. Who the heck cares ? If either one decides to run for some public office then you can either vote for them or not vote for them but way too many seem to think that trash talking and name calling will somehow convince the people who like these very conservative two are in some way evil demagogues. The only explanation I can come up with is that far left liberal types are scared to death of these two. While some people call them "idiots" and they are laughing all the way to the bank.

I'll be glad to explain it to you.

Beck: Uses half truths, fabrications, and outright lies in a conscious effort to stir up controversy, knowing it will increase his ratings among a certain target demographic. And it works.

Palin: Tries to sound like a competent administrator/leader by using simplistic sound bites and talking points that will appeal to a certain target demographic. And it works.

Those within the target demographic seem to hold the opinion that Beck is a fount of information and Palin is a plausible presidential contender.

Those outside the target demographic see them as clowns. Entertaining but in no way significant other than as a barometer of the radical right's anger and irrationality.

The result is that they both keep millions entertained. Some get angry and energized. Others laugh.

[Rickers]

I'm slightly entertained with so called news on TV and would rather be sitting back watching old movies.
I just don't really see the reason so many folks pay any of these types so much attention, especially when neither are running for office, (yet). I could understand the fuss if either has indicated any intention to run but they are just making money off of books and movies etc. I'm not buying anyone's books or watching anyone's movies. Just voting quietly when it my turn in the booth.

[the3Ds]

Originally Posted by rickers

I just don't get all the fascination that so many people have with Glen Beck or Sara Palin. They are just a couple of people who express their ideas. If anyone doesn't like them fine, don't listen, or buy the books or watch the movie. Who the heck cares ? The only explanation I can come up with is that far left liberal types are scared to death of these two. While some people call them "idiots" and they are laughing all the way to the bank.

They are just two more figures in the "Cult Wars" that have taken over this country. If you are on one side, the other is pure evil. Glenn Beck is an entertainer. He is not running for office. There are hundreds of channels on tv and people have to buy cable in order to tune in. They do and more people are doing so because those who oppose him are yelling so loudly, it makes others wonder, "what's up with this guy that so many people are so angry about him? I should probably watch."

Sarah Palin...the truth is, the more people hate her, the more popular she becomes and the millions of people who have bought her book and likely passed them on, are understanding that in politics, there is no space for the "Average American." You may not like her but she is pretty normal and she doesn't come across as condescending like so many politicians do. People make fun of her for not being prepared for the media onslaught and perhaps not answering questions like a professional politician who has staffers to work with them on "non-answers" for hours at a time, but that's her appeal on one hand and her downfall on the other. She's not stupid and as long as those who hate her continue to use words like "bimbo" when describing her, the more those who are looking for a different direction in this country are going to cling to her, just like they do their "Gods and Guns".

But you're right in saying there is a serious hatred of her that goes beyond normal. Remember the "Bush Derangement Syndrome"? There are people who are seriously deranged about Sarah Palin and I just don't get it. People get way too wired over total strangers. Surely there are better ways to spend your time.