CosmicBills

The Dark Tower was a bummer. But what an ambitious project! They wanted to not only do a film franchise, but parlay that into a TV series in between the films. Universal is gonna take a bath with Battleship (which already has cost them 200 mill conservatively). They also have RIPD and another big tentpole that I'm forgetting slated for 2012. I think Dark Tower just became too ambitious -- even for producers as good as Grazer and Howard. Then again, Ron Howard doesn't strike me as the right choice to direct that adaptation. So maybe it was a good thing.

No, you're 1000% correct. The studio system has always been run by the stars. Not the producers, directors, writers or execs. A star is the only person who can get a movie green-lit. A star is the only reason studios will invest money in a film. A star is the number one draw for audiences. There aren't a lot of true stars in existence. Maybe 8? Probably less. As such, it becomes supply and demand. Stars like JD have huge quotes. Often times they'll take a steep pay cut in exchange for more of the back end -- but studios are hesitant to do that as it eats into their profits. The WGA and SAG strikes a few years ago helped studios by giving them an excuse to streamline development (read: fire studio execs and stop paying millions of dollars to writers who's projects are in perpetual development hell). That certainly helped the studio's bottom line ... but it did nothing to address the problem you bring up. I don't know the answer to be honest. Stars are the most important part of any movie (from a studio perspective) ... But it's gotten to the point where attempting to make an original movie has become far riskier financially for the studios than to just keep pumping out adaptations, sequels and the like. It's depressing for the creatives in the business. That's for sure.

This certainly played a big role ...

Ha! I actually have the script open on my computer at this very moment. What are the odds? Truth be told, I haven't read it yet (though the original writers are two of my all time favorites). This is the first I've heard of werewolves in it -- but that doesn't mean they're not there. In fact, I'm not even sure if I have the final draft of the script (I'm pretty sure I don't). 250 million is an absurd sounding number. I don't work with Disney on the feature side, so I'm really just speaking from what I hear around town. But most of the cost is for the talent. Depp alone is 25 million plus back end points. Gore I believe is somewhere in the neighborhood of 15. Bruckheimer's fee is probably in the 20s as well (or maybe higher, I have NO idea what a producer of his clout would get on a feature of this scope). The writers have quotes in the high 7 figures as well. The packaging alone, just the actors, writers, directors, producers -- probably account for close to 100 million of the budget. And then you're looking at easily another 100 million in marketing for a big tent-pole like this would be. Sadly, this is the truth of studio movies these days. Which is why studios are so risk adverse and focused on making movies that already have a built in audience (remakes, sequels, comics, book adaptations) rather than original material. I'll ask around though and try to find out more.

So ... you're implying that someone is pulling a Weekend At Bernie's here and JW is somehow smoothing the way for an announcement that Ralph is no longer the owner of the Bills?

This article saddens me. ... And makes me hate football a little bit.

Mind your business! (in truth it was forwarded to me ... not that that makes it any better)

I'm pretty good with words. But this ... defies explanation. Thus, I had to share. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhbCnsChDU8&feature=player_embedded#

Stop using your fancy logic!

He hasn't shown either of those traits in the NFL.

Is there a topic, any topic, in which you don't have a cynical or totally uninformed opinion on? Or do you only come on here to post when you get tired of yelling at the grass for growing too loudly?

This is of course true to an extent. As the creative authors of their worlds, I wholeheartedly agree they deserve to get paid for their efforts. And I know it's easy for me to say this from my cheap seats but there comes a point where you can choose between your art and your bank account. That's sadly not always the case in this business as a writer. Getting stuff made is hard. And getting NEW stuff made is impossible. And when you're starting out you sometimes have to make compromises with your material just to get it out there because if you don't, you will be unemployed for quite a while. But someone who creates and runs a hit show? That should never be the case. Face it, as the creator of a hit television show, you are well compensated. Even on basic cable. And there comes a point where, if you're not a total idiot with your money, that extra three million you're holding out for isn't going to affect any aspect of your lifestyle. Especially if you keep making quality shows that people want to watch. And if I were in that position and had to choose between more money for myself at the expense of the world I created -- I'd hope like hell I'd side with my show. After all, that's your job as the creator. To protect your vision and create something compelling. As a fan, that's what I expect and I hope I'd hold myself to that standard. If that's how it all really went down, and I'm not saying it was. But if it did ... then Frank should be applauded. I'm a walking cliche.

Sounds like common sense to me.

Amen. There are of course plenty of brilliant filmmakers operating outside of the studio system. And there are visionaries who refuse to compromise and still manage to get the MBA's to give them what they need without having to compromise their creative integrity. But those are all, sadly, very rare in this town.

:lol: That just made my night.

That. Is. Amazing.

It makes me think Ralph picks the first round and then falls asleep from all the activity for his customary 72 hour nap.

Anytime! I'm a nerd about this business. I'm still learning it though so by no means am I an expert. The ad revenue plays a role I'm sure, but even though these shows are doing very well (especially WD), the numbers they drive in are still tiny in comparison to some of the networks. So the ad buys on AMC are smaller ... that could always change as AMC grows its audience. But the jump from season 1 to season 2 would probably have already been calculated into the networks "best case business plan" for the show. Meaning they wouldn't want to up the budget. But that's total speculation. All of my budget experience has been on the other side of things. I've worked on a few pilots and seen how the budgets are built from the show's side, but never how the network builds theirs. Hey, I agree 100% with you. I'm on the creative side, so I'm the one who is trying to get the networks and studios to to believe in the show/movie. I firmly believe that if you have a good story and a talented bunch of people working on it (which a show like the Walking Dead has, as does Breaking Bad and Mad Men -- I've worked with a few from those shows who are just mind blowingly talented mo fos) that the audience will be there provided the network allows them to do it right. And there are a lot of people on the network side who believe that too and fight hard for it. But not everyone thinks that. Sometimes it forces you to be more creative and inventive though ... but if they don't meet you at least half way it becomes almost impossible. I have no idea if WD is at that point. But I gotta believe that the show will still end up doing pretty well. I think there's talent left there even with Frank gone (and I'm a huge fan of his). The problem is that AMC doesn't share those profits alone (if any of them). Again, this is an area where I'm less familiar with the specifics of how the rights are done in these sorts of deals but ... the way it normally works is: Pilots are bought by a studio first (Fox, Sony, Warner Brothers etc). The studio provides the budget for the pilot. The studio then sells the pilot to the networks who air it. That's how sometimes you get shows that are done by Disney but are aired on Fox or FX or NBC (which is Universal) rather than ABC. Now, I have NO idea who owns the merchandising rights or the DVD rights but I'd imagine it'd be the studio. Or at least the studio would get the largest cut of that pie with the production company and producers getting a chunk as well. The networks, I think, get almost all of their revenues from ad sales. Which is why every network orders somewhere between 5-10 pilots a year (sometimes more -- after all, their investment is FAR less up front than the studios) and then only a handful of them actually make it to air. They watch the pilots (which the studios and production companies make and assume all the risk on -- normally) then pick the ones they think will sell the most ads. That's where the dilemma comes. The studio is always on the show's side of things because they make money from syndication, merch and all that stuff. But the network has a different agenda because their profits come from a different spot.

Here's the thing ... you might be right. I'm hoping you are and he certainly had moments of brilliance last year. I have no problems with SJ. I DO have a problem buying that our WR corps is as deep as it actually is. There are too many unknowns. None of the other WRs have shown anything in the NFL. Some haven't even played a down. WR has one of the fastest learning curves, so experience isn't a huge factor. But no one really knows how good any of these guys are outside of Roscoe. They all could be as good as everyone thinks, in which case that's fine. I'm an optimist and I'm excited for this season with or without Lee. What disturbs me is the timing of the move and the compensation. I'm not a GM. I'm not anything. So it's very possible that the 4th rounder was the best the Bills could possibly get. But in my opinion, if you factor in the other blunders that have gone on in the past decade, or just the blunders of the Nix regime (of which to be fair the jury is still out on most of those "blunders) -- then at first blush this looks like a bad deal. Is it? We'll find out.

Playing Devil's Advocate here ... AMC has always said they treated the 6 ep run of the show as one extended pilot. You always have the most money (and time) to shoot your pilot. Then, when/if the show gets picked up, the budget is always lower than what you got for the pilot. LOST for example was a 20 million dollar pilot -- they did not spend 20 million per episode (or even 10 since the pilot was a 2 hour pilot). It's the same with every show. There was no way AMC was going to spend the same per episode in season 2 while doubling the episode order from 6 to 13. That's their stance. The real question is if they cut the budget by MORE than Frank and Hurd expected due to Weiner's ongoing negotiations ... if that's the case, then it's really a crappy thing. But it all goes back to the fact that it's a basic cable network with limited funds compared to pay cable and especially compared to broadcast networks.

I haven't seen it yet ... I probably will pass.

While an awesome sentiment (and I mean that sincerely, I do not mean this as a slight towards you at all) -- if that's the reason they did this then the team is in far worse shape than even the biggest doom and gloomers think. This is not a popularity contest. It's about winning games now AND in the future.

Frightening. And sad. That sums up exactly why this team has been awful for a decade and counting. But it's a new season now. Anything can happen.

If by young you mean unproven then yes. Those WRs are a dime a dozen (literally, look where the Bills found them). Lee is proven, his numbers over the past 2 years have been bad but so has the team. The team has been one of the worst teams in the league for 10 years, it's not a surprise to see his numbers decline. But NO one trades for someone based on their numbers. They trade for them based on what their potential to THEIR franchise is. The fact that Lee is undervalued or under used on the Bills means nothing when it comes to getting value from him. To Baltimore, he's worth more than a 4th round pick. He provides them the best deep threat they've had (maybe ever) and also helps them compete with the Steelers and develop Flacco. The time to trade is when the other guy is desperate. You don't throw Lee Evans away for nothing (which a low 4th round pick will be) when it costs you NOTHING to hold on to him until April and trade him then (or when a contender loses a WR to injury). It's another terrible move by this front office which once again has shown it does not understand how to build a winning team. And again, this has nothing to do with me wanting to keep Lee. I don't care if they trade him, it makes sense to move him so long as you're getting the highest possible value in return. They didn't. End of story.

It's not as simple as that article makes it sound. My take (which is all speculation based on things I hear around town, I have NO inside knowledge): Breaking Bad isn't going anywhere -- it's all a negotiating stand. Sony (the studio who owns it) threatens to take the show elsewhere to get more money for themselves (and Gilligan) but also because Gilligan wants to end the show next season. This tactic is Sony's way of getting that language into the contract deal so that AMC can't just continue the show with another show runner. Gilligan and Sony are just taking a stand to protect his creative interests. But it'll get resolved and stay on AMC. Mad Men is the real issue. Weiner wants a boatload of cash. He wants to be paid like the show is on a broadcast network instead of a small basic cable station, which AMC is. AMC wants to keep Mad Man and is going to do whatever it takes to do so. But AMC does not have the deep pockets of an NBC, ABC, FOX or even CBS. Not even close. Some speculate Frank was standing up for his show's cast and crew by refusing AMC's request to slash the budget. A move Frank (reportedly) saw as being undertaken entirely to free up more cash for Weiner. (stuff here) The truth of the matter is probably somewhere in between. AMC has exploded due to their ability to find and cultivate groundbreaking television in ways that other basic cable networks haven't before. Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, The Killing and even Rubicon though it was canceled, are shows you'd find on HBO 10 years ago. AMC took a shot on these shows and it paid off huge. But the downside (from a writing standpoint) of being on a channel like AMC is that even if your show becomes a critical darling you're just never going to see the same kind of pay day you'd get on a broadcast channel. There's just not enough money. But when these creators hit the end of their deals (like Weiner) and it's time to renegotiate, they expect to be paid like a Dick Wolf or Chuck Lorre, or JJ, etc. Frank is a feature guy. He's one of my favorite writers in this town, but he's not going to compromise his show regardless of the financial realities of the network he chose. I applaud him for that. But he also should have expected this ... (if that's how it really happened that is).