The Producer
I would like to know more about the people here. What have you done and what do you plan to do. Producer isn't a light title to carry.
Myself I live in a po-dunk little town that is trying to make it with the major metropolitan areas. They believe youth will pave the way, as far as I can tell our "youth" haven't done a damn thing. They are the people that sit in the meetings with the great ideas and do nothing about it.
I want to create events, they probably won't put us on the map but they will be events. No donating for a cause but people going out spending their hard earned evening for a memorable evening.
Myself I live in a po-dunk little town that is trying to make it with the major metropolitan areas. They believe youth will pave the way, as far as I can tell our "youth" haven't done a damn thing. They are the people that sit in the meetings with the great ideas and do nothing about it.
I want to create events, they probably won't put us on the map but they will be events. No donating for a cause but people going out spending their hard earned evening for a memorable evening.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 4.
And of course the portion in taxes that you agreed to pay by virtue of accepting the business license.
Additionally, there are laws governing work rates and rules for for-profit enterprises, that are far different than for non-profit political causes. Advertising for someone to "volunteer" for a for profit enterprise violates those rules. This is why you don't see "volunteers: working for corporations: The law doesn't consider them volunteers, it considers them employees. The only exception is if the are receiving school credit for the experience.
You forget that I do this stuff for a living.
Once again, your rhetoric is childish. You set it up so that you can dismiss anyone who disagrees quickly, even ignoring reports that the first film has made its money back in home media as well as the fact that no one knows what will happen with Part 2. All the so-called experts certainly didn't think 2016 would succeed.
It's easy to win the argument when the rules are all bent in your favor. It's easy to win the economic game when the rules are all bent in your favor.
Kudos for the coolest thread title on the board.
Furthermore, the costs for subsequent advertising betind the initial release are a separate item, and while those costs remain constant, they show diminishing returns over time.
Anyone who understands the first thing about film financing and marketing know that this film stands little chance of making back it's total investment , even if part 2 does exceptionally well.
Once again, prove me wrong, and I'll apologize.
It has been widely reported that the first film made its money back on home media says.
It is impossible to have a cult in Objectivism, and in reality the people who would be considered the "hardcore" cult members hate the movies and disparage them worse than you could ever dream of.
1) The vast majority of the money invested in the making and marketing of this film is coming from outside investors, reducing the risk of the producers to a small fraction of what other film makers experience. If the film tanks, you still got paid a weekly salary to make the film, just as everyone else working on the film did. What you didn't get is your "producer" cut, the percentage of the profits that you don't intend to share with the rest of the film makers, unless contracts require it. Typical American-Capitalist stuff
2) Even using the most creative math in the world, part 1 will never come close to realizing a profit on the costs of making and selling the film. You need part 2 to do exceptionally well to hope to save the ship at all.
3) The budget for part 2, including marketing and distribution will triple the amount spent of part 1. These figures have been announced in the media via formal press releases. These aren't my claims, they are yours.
4) Review the media coverage leading up to an and including the announcement for this film, and the common thread in that the priority for the film was to get it released in time to have an impact on the election, Every other consideration was secondary. Nowhere in any of tour press releases is it acknowledged that there was a 9 month dead period between the finishing of part 1 and the announcement of part 2. That delay eventually necessitated scrambling and compromises. There is nobody to blame for that waste of time but yourselves. Using the excuse that part 2 is not an "A" level film because production was rushed, is rubbish.
5) 99% of all films made in America have a budgets in the $10 million range, including recent Oscars nominees and winners. Your announced budget exceeds that total by a large amount, and your marketing and distribution budgets for part 2 are on par with many studio films.
6) This film is being sold to a cult. Nearly all of the income for the film will come from the cult, not from the general public. Everything this project has done to date to develop interest in the project has been to market to that cult, not to the general public. Perhaps that will change somewhat as release of the film nears, but I think it's fair to assume that the bulk of the marketing will always be aimed at those friendly to Rand's philosophy. Rand is nowhere near as popular or as influential as the producers of the film have stated, and you aren't going to win many converts with this film. You know that, and you're going to avoid wasting money on mainstream advertising that won't attract enough customers to warrant the expense.
Your turn. I was quite specific in my comments. I would appreciate if you do the same. What of what I've said has even the slightest tinge of falseness?
Load more comments...