Slashdot Mirror

http://worldofwonder.net/archives/2005/Jul/26/snap _cap.wow
via boing-boing, pic of lolibots awaiting shipping.

See:

Initial Hiltzik column: 'Deep Throat' Numbers Just Don't Add Up
Bailey and Barbato (directors, writers, producers of Inside Deep Throat): More Numbers for 'Deep Throat'
a somewhat longer version of their response: 'Throat' Gets Cut, Directors Perform Surgery
Hiltzik then asked them to answer twelve questions which resulted in this column:
Hiltzik: Bad 'Deep Throat' Revenue Numbers Are Multiplying

Ebert also covered Inside Deep Throat in an earlier Movie Answer Man column:
February 20, 2005

See:

Initial Hiltzik column: 'Deep Throat' Numbers Just Don't Add Up
Bailey and Barbato (directors, writers, producers of Inside Deep Throat): More Numbers for 'Deep Throat'
a somewhat longer version of their response: 'Throat' Gets Cut, Directors Perform Surgery
Hiltzik then asked them to answer twelve questions which resulted in this column:
Hiltzik: Bad 'Deep Throat' Revenue Numbers Are Multiplying

Ebert also covered Inside Deep Throat in an earlier Movie Answer Man column:
February 20, 2005

Besides the the sarcasm he probably intended?

Here are some various and recent articles on (not) making money in Hollywood. They're not all related to (lack) of profit, but all at mention in different ways where all the money comes from and where it goes.

First three by Leonard Klady, who writes for moviecitynews.com:

Lies, Damn Lies And Statistics... (the average cost to produce and market a major Hollywood studio picture is $98 million)
Profits of Doom ... (this one goes gets around to showing how a blockbuster movie might never break even)
In Praise of Popcorn...

Then three from Slate, all written by Edward Jay Epstein:

Concessions Are for Girlie Men: Arnold Schwarzenegger's absurdly advantageous contract for Terminator 3 (a brand new article on a movie released in 2003)
How Did Michael Eisner Make Disney Profitable? Not with cartoons. (

"In 1984, when Eisner took command, the "Mouse House" produced only one animated picture every three to five years. Its entire film library had only 158 features, and its single cable channel, the Disney Channel, lost money. In addition, Disney had virtually no income from sales of videos. To keep afloat, the company depended on its amusement parks and its Mickey Mouse licensing. Yet even with these assets Disney had a tax-free cash flow of just $100 million. Its share price, reflecting this precarious financial position, was $1.33 (adjusted for splits).
In 2005, Disney was one of the richest companies in America. Its enterprise value--Wall street's favored measure of an entertainment company--had increased 32-fold since 1984 and stood at $69 billion."

)
How To Finance a Hollywood Blockbuster. Start with a German tax shelter; How NOT To Make Any Money On A Hollywood Blockbuster, a comment on the article written by David Poland, editor of moviecitynews.com, who finds it interesting but is not impressed by its accuracy.

And can a slashdot posting be complete without porn?

How much money did perhaps the most famous porn movie of all time, Deep Throat (1972), gross? The documentary Inside Deep Throat (2005) claims that it that it is the most profitable picture ever made, and that it has grossed $600 million.
Michael Hiltzik of The Los Angeles Times disputes this, using the technical term "baloney". This set off a number of responses back and forth between Hiltzik and Fenton Bailey and Randy Barbato who wrote, co-produced and directed the documentary.

Initial Hiltzik column: 'Deep Throat' Numbers Just Don't Add Up
Bailey and Barbato: More Numbers for 'Deep Throat', a somewhat longer version of their response: 'Throat' Gets Cut, Directors Perform Surgery
Hiltzik then asked them to answer twelve questions, which resulted in this column:
Hiltzik: Bad 'Deep Throat' Revenue Number

Besides the the sarcasm he probably intended?

Here are some various and recent articles on (not) making money in Hollywood. They're not all related to (lack) of profit, but all at mention in different ways where all the money comes from and where it goes.

First three by Leonard Klady, who writes for moviecitynews.com:

Lies, Damn Lies And Statistics... (the average cost to produce and market a major Hollywood studio picture is $98 million)
Profits of Doom ... (this one goes gets around to showing how a blockbuster movie might never break even)
In Praise of Popcorn...

Then three from Slate, all written by Edward Jay Epstein:

Concessions Are for Girlie Men: Arnold Schwarzenegger's absurdly advantageous contract for Terminator 3 (a brand new article on a movie released in 2003)
How Did Michael Eisner Make Disney Profitable? Not with cartoons. (

"In 1984, when Eisner took command, the "Mouse House" produced only one animated picture every three to five years. Its entire film library had only 158 features, and its single cable channel, the Disney Channel, lost money. In addition, Disney had virtually no income from sales of videos. To keep afloat, the company depended on its amusement parks and its Mickey Mouse licensing. Yet even with these assets Disney had a tax-free cash flow of just $100 million. Its share price, reflecting this precarious financial position, was $1.33 (adjusted for splits).
In 2005, Disney was one of the richest companies in America. Its enterprise value--Wall street's favored measure of an entertainment company--had increased 32-fold since 1984 and stood at $69 billion."

)
How To Finance a Hollywood Blockbuster. Start with a German tax shelter; How NOT To Make Any Money On A Hollywood Blockbuster, a comment on the article written by David Poland, editor of moviecitynews.com, who finds it interesting but is not impressed by its accuracy.

And can a slashdot posting be complete without porn?

How much money did perhaps the most famous porn movie of all time, Deep Throat (1972), gross? The documentary Inside Deep Throat (2005) claims that it that it is the most profitable picture ever made, and that it has grossed $600 million.
Michael Hiltzik of The Los Angeles Times disputes this, using the technical term "baloney". This set off a number of responses back and forth between Hiltzik and Fenton Bailey and Randy Barbato who wrote, co-produced and directed the documentary.

Initial Hiltzik column: 'Deep Throat' Numbers Just Don't Add Up
Bailey and Barbato: More Numbers for 'Deep Throat', a somewhat longer version of their response: 'Throat' Gets Cut, Directors Perform Surgery
Hiltzik then asked them to answer twelve questions, which resulted in this column:
Hiltzik: Bad 'Deep Throat' Revenue Number

Remember, this is outsourced. It's a WorldOfWonder programme. So, what other magnificent programmes have this company been responsible for?

• The Adam & Joe Show - puerile comedy.
• 101 Rent Boys - need I say more?
• The RuPaul Show - and I thought I hated Ruby Wax
• Takeover TV - this is the best thing they've done, and they didn't actually do any of it; it's viewer-contributed stuff like American open-access cable channels.

I've sent them an exploratory mail about Monochrome to see if they're genuinely interested in real internet communities, or if they just want to cover "well-known" websites and pretend, once again, that Web == Internet.

101 Rent Boys, The Adam And Joe Show, Daily Planet, The Divine David Presents, Drop Dead Gorgeous, God In The House, Hollywood Fashion Machine, Hot Property, Juror #5 - the OJ civil trial, Party Monster, The Real Ellen Story, The RuPaul Show, Shock Video 6: Turn On TV '98, Takeover TV, The Eyes of Tammy Faye, Tickled Pink, TV Afrika, TV Latino, TV Pizza, Viva Espana, Wrinklyvision

The attitude of doing everything on the cheap is one more endemic to the independent TV production companies than to the BBC itself. Don't think TV companies skimp on research because it is expensive, research is cheap, studio time, production crews, talent, and the rest is expensive. Research is often not done properly solely due to pressure of time, which is more of an issue with the structure of the commissioning process. You're view of TV production as some Dibert-esque corporate approach is almost laughable. Independent TV companies will look to save money on everything whatever the subject matter, and are going to be more concerned on being able to sell an idea, than any short cuts they might well make.

The BBC have made a few good TV programmes on the Internet, such as Tales from the Net, and the magazince show The Net, but these have been made by the BBC Education division. These programmes don't get peak time slots, and even if they did, they would get lousy ratings. That is not the point. They were intelligent TV shows, which appealed to a niche audience. The fact that they got made at all, was purely down to "the unique way the BBC is funded", in other words, if the BBC were trying operate as a purely commercial venture, much of their best programmes would be ditched for stuff with higher ratings, and lower production values. I don't blame the BBC for not producing populist programmes that will trounce ITV's peak time offerings in the ratings, that is not what they are there for. The BBC should be concentrating on quality, and breadth of subject matter. I only hope they haven't made an unwise choice in the selection of this particular company to produce one of their new programmes, since their main oeuvre seems to be cheap TV.