So, have YOU seen "Fahrenheit 9/11"?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Is there a way that I can watch this film without having to financially reward Michael Moore?

pay for another movie.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Verto


You make it sound like everyone knew this was a coordinated terrorist attack and that Bush could have stopped it.

You did it first.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Good point. Haven't done that since I was a teenager.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Good point. Haven't done that since I was a teenager.

Where I went there was no one checking the enterence.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Is there a way that I can watch this film without having to financially reward Michael Moore?

Download it.


The version currently available isn't the best quality, however, since it was recorded on a camcorder. It's not perfectly centered and you miss out on some of the sides preventing you from seeing sub-titles sometimes, and the sound is pretty poor. But it if you don't want to pay, and don't want to wait for a DVD rip, than you can't complain.

[Verto]

Originally posted by General Ludd


Download it.

Michael Moore supports this. Too bad MooreWatch.com was under fire for linking to a download for the movie.

[MRT144]

saw it, liked it. it doesnt do anything to change your mind though

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by JohnT


After the first plane? Who was thinking terrorists then? It wasn't until the second plane hit that people suddenly became aware that this was a terrorist action - before then, it was just a tragic accident. Sad, yes, important, maybe, worthy of the President's attention, not at that moment.

I remember seeing the thread on Google news and thinking "some idiot has flown a cessna (sized plane) into the WTC". I was thinking along the lines of JFK Jr. Then I turned on the TV...............

Bush did look a bit like a deer in the headlights. So what? Should he have leapt up and changed into his superman costume?

Actually the funniest thing that occured and which came out in the hearings (they were discussing the things that went wrong that morning) was that the motorcade went the wrong way to the airport and had to turn around and go back.

Not even that dickhead Ben Veneste criticized Bushs actions at the school.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I agree with Spencer and JohnT... it's the most moronic thing to attack Bush on. What was he supposed to do? Get up right at that moment and say something bad just happened, gotta run? Of course the left would be critisizing him for that if he did it as well.

[Giancarlo]

Michael Moron is simliar to nazi film propagandists. Lie about the reality as best as you can, to try and convince people. Unfortunately convincing people isn't his shining ability. He's just pissing people off.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I agree with Spencer and JohnT... it's the most moronic thing to attack Bush on. What was he supposed to do? Get up right at that moment and say something bad just happened, gotta run? Of course the left would be critisizing him for that if he did it as well.

Two words would of sufficed, before geting up and findind out what was going on: "excuse me".

[JohnT]

Speaking of scams:

The Wall Street Journal today is reporting that 60% of the net profits from F-911 is going to go to "unspecified charities". I'm sure that MM will trumpet this to the high heavens. However, in the few times that lawsuits have forced Hollywood to pry open their books, it is always revealed that Net Points aren't worth the paper they're written on. Check out the following regarding Forrest Gump, a movie that grossed $382,000,000 in the US on first release - it "lost" $62,000,000!!!

Hollywood accounting can be every bit as creative as a good movie script.
At least, that is what some lawyers and journalists seem to be telling us.
According to news reports, the hit movie Forrest Gump, which won "best picture"
honors at the Academy Awards, claimed a worldwide theatrical gross of $661
million in the first 18 months after its release. That amount excludes
videocassette and soundtrack revenues, nor does it include licensing fees on
Forrest Gump products such as wristwatches, ping-pong paddles,and shrimp
cookbooks. Yet,according to Paramount Studios, the film project lost $62
million on a box office gross of $382 million during its first year.

Forrest Gump is one of a string of hit movies to report a loss. Other
losers include Batman, Rain Man, Dick Tracy, Ghostbusters, Alien, On Golden
Pond, Fatal Attraction, and Coming to America. Each of these motion pictures
grossed well over $100 million, but in each case, costs were reportedly higher
than revenues.

How can the studios be losing so much money on their most successful
projects? Sometimes what is referred to as a loss is not really a loss at all.
Typically, profits are calculated based on contracts between the studios and
the film's "net profit participants."In a typical net profit participation
contract,"profit"is gross studio revenues after deductingF

* "Negative costs" - production costs and payments to "gross participants"
(who receive a percentage of gross studio revenues).
* Studio overhead (some of which is allocated to the film as a percentage
of the gross revenue.)
* Promotion and distribution costs.
* Advertising overhead (which is computed as a percentage of promotion
and distribution costs).
* A distribution fee paid directly to the studio.
* Interest on the unrecovered costs (losses), whether or not the film was
financed with debt.

The net profit participation contract is not the same as profit or loss
for the motion picture, which is accounted for as a project or job. Net profit
participation is a contract for compensation between the studio and certain
individuals.

Winston Groom, the author of Forrest Gump, retained an attorney to obtain
a share of the profits from the film, although Paramount reported a loss.
Groom was paid $350,000 for the movie rights to the book and is entitled to 3
percent of the film's net profits. Paramount says it expects Forrest Gump to
eventually show a profit and has advanced Groom $250,000 against his net
profit participation.

At issue in the lawsuit is the way the studios calculate net profit.
Critics argue that some of the costs (such as the distribution fee), are not
really costs at all; instead, they are studio profits disguised as costs.
Overhead allocations, such as studio overhead and advertising overhead,
are based on arbitrary allocations, which, some have argued, are much higher
than the actual overhead costs that are assignable to the film. In addition,
whether the net profit participants should lose compensation because of cost
overruns is questionable :they are largely under the control of the director,
the stars, and the studio.

Will Paramount ever report a profit for Forrest Gump? That depends
on how you define "profit" and whose perspective you take. Actor Tom Hanks
and director Robert Zemeckis have already made more than $20 million each,
including a share of the gross. But from the point of view of the net profit
participants(e.g.,Winston Groom),the film might never show a profit.

Required


Examine the net profit participant statement of profit and loss on page 138.

a. What amount of box office gross revenues is required before Forrest Gump
earns a profit according to the net profit participation contract?

b. What amount of box office gross revenues is required before Forrest
Gump earns a profit for Paramount?

c. Is Paramount's calculation of net profit fair to the net profit
participants?


Net Profit Participant Statement of Profit and Loss
Forrest Gump
During Its First Year of Release (in millions)
__________________________________________________ ___________________________

Box office gross revenues $382
Less: Amount retained by movie theaters(50%) 191
_____
Studio's gross revenues $191 $191
Less: Negative costs:
Production costs $66.8
Gross profit participation 30.6
(director, actors, 16% of studio gross revenues)
Studio's overhead (15% of negative costs) 14.6
Promotion and distribution costs 67.2 67.2
Advertising overhead 6.7
(10% of promotion and distribution cost)
Distribution fee (32% of studio gross revenue) 61.1
_____
Total operating costs $247

Operating profit (loss) (56) (56)
Less: Financing costs 6
(3% above prime on operating loss, assume amount is fixed)
_______
Net profit (loss) for distribution to net profit participants $(62)

And this sort of thing is so common it is accepted by the community. A word to those who would like to strike it big in the film industry - never, ever accept Net Points. Never. Not if you want to see any money from the movie. I bet they can figure out how Titanic ($1.8 billion worldwide grosses, $900,000,000 studio percentage) lost money as well. Or even the Blair Witch project, a movie that cost $50,000 to make and grossed about $150,000,000 in the US.

[Giancarlo]

You make money yet you lose money? What the hell? I think the IRS should be investigating Michael Moore.. he might be funneling money to Al Qaeda.

[JohnT]

Anyway, cite for the above. Since the FG lawsuit was settled before the big internet expansion of the mid, late 1990's, there are few primary sources one can find online about it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Two words would of sufficed, before geting up and findind out what was going on: "excuse me".

Uh huh... and then the kids would wonder why Bush was gone and didn't come back. He decided not to panic the kids. Good for him! Secondly the Secret Service wouldn't have let him leave anyway. They were securing the area because he would have to leave early.