Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Which shows how you guys place things on emotion, rather than figures.
It probably cost Beck around $200-$300 to rent out each theater,
Now, that's a bold assumption, completely devoid of facts.
Quote:
which means that at 10-15 he breaks even. One could easily assume that Beck would have received a volume discount due to the number of theaters rented out.
The figures from the story show 17/30, meaning each show would have been profitable AT $340-$600 in revenues..
Considering some movie theater pricing structures, (i.e. $10 per person cost from Island Cinemas : Mastic Movie Theater - Birthday Parties) this would mean that Beck would profit $10 per seat, and this is before any special discounts are negotiated due to volume pricing etc. Tell me how $10 profit * 17 per theater * 500 theaters = "flop" because that would equate to at least $85,000 profit for one evening, and this is at the VERY low end, since other theaters had 30 etc..
So you dont have a clue by your own admission?
My "clue' was quoting figures from the OP link to the news story. Your "figures" are completely pulled from a warm brown place.
You call me "clueless" yet proceed with fantasy figures as though you're making a pont.
Quote:
Ahh, I'm the one simply pointing out that you dont have a clue, now by your own admission. I did not make any claims as to its success or failures because I cant vouch for the numbers in attendance, (I wasnt there), nor can I vouch for any profit/losses because I havent seen them and they wont be available online because these are private numbers and not available to the public. Common sense would dictate that its profitable, or he wouldnt do them time after time.
It's charming to observe your deep emotional investment in the fortunes of Beck's venture.
BTW, unfortunately for you and him, it's a big flop.
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.
They can, yes, but as we don't know the production costs for Capitalism, you'll pardon me if I don't take you word for it that it's "obvious". We know that Fahrenheit 9/11 was a $6 million dollar production, so that's a ballpark figure, and Capitalism wasn't heavily marketed. Break-even is rather likely, but there's no doubt that the movie didn't live up to expectations.
Slice it any way you want - the fact remains that at the end of the night, the Invisible Hand took out its roll of ones and put 14 million in the garter of Capitalism, while Carol left the stage with only 7. (And Carol had more venues, more marketing and higher production costs.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
It probably cost Beck around $200-$300 to rent out each theater,
That's ridiculous. You couldn't establish the feed for that sum, let alone rent a theatre to show it in. I can't tell whether Beck overestimated his appeal or whether he just wanted to have Boston and DC on the list of venues. The decision made no business sense.
Now, that's a bold assumption, completely devoid of facts.
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)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wade52
My "clue' was quoting figures from the OP link to the news story.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wade52
Your "figures" are completely pulled from a warm brown place.
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wade52
You call me "clueless" yet proceed with fantasy figures as though you're making a pont.
My point is/was that you dont have a clue if it was a "flop", per your claim and then your admission.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wade52
It's charming to observe your deep emotional investment in the fortunes of Beck's venture.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wade52
BTW, unfortunately for you and him, it's a big flop.
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..
They can, yes, but as we don't know the production costs for Capitalism, you'll pardon me if I don't take you word for it that it's "obvious".
What did I claim was "obvious"? Let me quote what I said.. Originally Posted by pghquest 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.
I said MOST LIKELY. do you have ANY clue what advertising costs?
Lets review some figures released on Capitalism shall we? Big Hollywood » Capitalism: A Love Story. Production costs, advertising costs and whatever Michael Moore takes above the line makes spinning a measly $14.2 million theatrical haul into anything other than a flop impossible.
A good rule of thumb is that after theaters take their cut, 55% of ticket sales make it back to the studio, and there’s no way $8 million is anything more than a sea of red
Now I'm sure you are fairly good in math, so lets do this slowly..
$14M income - $14.2 expenses - 55% of ticket sales = LOSSES...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
We know that Fahrenheit 9/11 was a $6 million dollar production, so that's a ballpark figure, and Capitalism wasn't heavily marketed. Break-even is rather likely, but there's no doubt that the movie didn't live up to expectations..
Break even is rather impossible, which is why the movie has been rushed into the $ movie theaters and into DVD, to recover costs...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
Slice it any way you want - the fact remains that at the end of the night, the Invisible Hand took out its roll of ones and put 14 million in the garter of Capitalism, while Carol left the stage with only 7. (And Carol had more venues, more marketing and higher production costs.)
What "Carol" production do you keep talking about, and what does it have to do with Moores or Becks production costs? This is like comparing the costs to Star Wars, as if they have any relation..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
That's ridiculous. You couldn't establish the feed for that sum, let alone rent a theatre to show it in. I can't tell whether Beck overestimated his appeal or whether he just wanted to have Boston and DC on the list of venues. The decision made no business sense.
the feeds are already in movie theaters, many movies are deliver by feeds from the movie distribution companies to the theaters. This isnt the 1970s where they need to ship movie reels back and forth anymore.
And since the feeds are already present, and the theaters take a cut of sales usually (see link above), not a $ per seat, Becks show could be considered a "success" because of the nearly ZERO costs involved. Its one guy, on a stage, talking to himself, with Beck taking a % of the sales.
The flick features the firebrand Fox News host sharing with willing souls his most profound childhood memories, along with his philosophies on life, love and happiness.
Why do conservatives think the most fascinating topic for books, movies, conversations, etc........., is themselves?
Hey I found a positive review of Beck's movie....strike that movie part I meant farce....I think this review might be written by Beck himself!
Quote:
It's amazing how some, like the other reviewers, will take time out of their life to ... bash is the only word... such a phenomenal piece of work. The Christmas Sweater is a beautiful metaphor for anyone who will stand and face their own emotional challenges.
I think it's best viewed when your heart is open and in the Christmas Spirit, but it's by no means strictly a Christmas tale. Powerful. Timeless. No matter what your political convictions are, this movie is .... moving.
What did I claim was "obvious"? Let me quote what I said.. Originally Posted by pghquest 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.
And what sentence came before that? Something about "stating the obvious", I believe. Let me just scroll back... Well, lookee:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
I hate to be the one to point out the obvious..
Looks like a claim to something being obvious to me.
Quote:
I said MOST LIKELY. do you have ANY clue what advertising costs?
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.
Quote:
Lets review some figures released on Capitalism shall we? Big Hollywood » Capitalism: A Love Story. Production costs, advertising costs and whatever Michael Moore takes above the line makes spinning a measly $14.2 million theatrical haul into anything other than a flop impossible.
A good rule of thumb is that after theaters take their cut, 55% of ticket sales make it back to the studio, and there’s no way $8 million is anything more than a sea of red
Now I'm sure you are fairly good in math,
Thanks.
Quote:
so lets do this slowly..
$14M income - $14.2 expenses - 55% of ticket sales = LOSSES...
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.
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.
Quote:
What "Carol" production do you keep talking about, and what does it have to do with Moores or Becks production costs?
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.
Quote:
the feeds are already in movie theaters, many movies are deliver by feeds from the movie distribution companies to the theaters. This isnt the 1970s where they need to ship movie reels back and forth anymore.
Actually, reels are still extensively shipped. Digital projection equipment isn't cheap and moviehouse projectors are written off over decades. 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.
Quote:
And since the feeds are already present,
Citing facts not in evidence.
Quote:
and the theaters take a cut of sales usually (see link above), not a $ per seat, Becks show could be considered a "success" because of the nearly ZERO costs involved. Its one guy, on a stage, talking to himself, with Beck taking a % of the sales.
I am impressed that you've maneuvered to "ZERO costs involved", seeing as your initial take (post 61) was this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
I'm sure its not cheap to rent out 500 movie theaters all at the same time..
Dang, not in my area but showing in my sister's area. I need to tell her about it and then call my local movie house to ask them to bring it here. He had the same show last year. Thanks for reminding me of it.
Dang, not in my area but showing in my sister's area. I need to tell her about it and then call my local movie house to ask them to bring it here. He had the same show last year. Thanks for reminding me of it.
Not to worry. If it doesn't come to your area, you can always buy the DVD at the dollar store.
Here is a couple of the "hicks" who went to it and enjoyed it. They look like a cute, intelligent couple to me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
