CosmicBills

That was simultaneously terrifying, hilarious, and educational.

Fair question. No disrespect intended, Pooj, but it seems like you have a pretty big thing for this gal. More than just a friend. But I echo what others have said on here -- stay as far removed from this situation as you can ... ESPECIALLY if you have feelings for this broad. It will end very, very badly for you. I know that sounds heartless, but it's true. There are some sinking ships you can't save and getting romantic feelings mixed into someone else's marriage when the other spouse is cheating is a recipe for disaster.

:lol:

Yeah, I agree ... I get it if you don't like the set up or actors, Dallas. I do. Everyone has their own tastes and I'm never one to judge (I like WAY too many bad movies to ever judge anyone's taste lol). In the case of Horrible Bosses, I think what sold it isn't a marketing checklist, but the actors playing different roles. We've never seen Aniston as a man-eater, Colin Ferrel as a balding douche bag, Kevin Spacey as ... well, we've seen him as a psycho. But Charlie Day (Aniston's employee) is AMAZING. He's one of my favorite new actors (though I guess he's not all that new, just in features) and that situation is going to be hilarious because of the juxtaposition from how we're accustomed to seeing both him and Aniston. (I think). I'm not sure if I am too high on the SNL guy who, to me, is too similar to Ed Helms (which is really unfair to say). But the rest of the cast makes me want to see this movie BECAUSE they are being absurd and playing against type (for the most part).

I mean ... it is a comedy. And purposefully outlandish. That's kind of the point. It's not like they're trying to make a serious movie. Are you saying that we can only tell stories grounded 100% in reality? Don't you think that defeats the purpose of movies -- escapism? Can you imagine what your favorite movies would look like if they adhered strictly to that rule?

No, it's a GREAT game! Good idea, it certainly is fun -- well for nerds like me I guess. No, you're right about your first point. I hijacked the thread a bit (blush) ... though, I'm holding out hope that the remakes of War Games and Red Dawn have little in common with the originals outside of the title. I hated the shot-for-shot Psycho remake (and will feel the same about Footloose). But I didn't mind True Grit or Let Me In since they brought something different to the story. But again, I'm way more forgiving about that sort of thing than most of the people I know who work in the biz. Which is strange since SO many of them get made. But I think that has more to do with Risk Management and the Studios now being nothing more than parts of a larger conglomerate. It makes it more about money than telling the best stories possible. Though, despite everything I've seen since being out here (which isn't all that long, just about 4 years), I will say that no one ever sets out to make a ****ty movie. Even the most bottom line thinking producers I've worked with all want nothing more than to make something awesome ... at least until the budget comes out:)

Yeah, the permutations are indeed endless, but I agree with you. The most I've EVER tried to do with my own stuff is 3 and THAT became tricky. Of course, if you read the book (which references a slew of plays that I've never read making it a bit difficult and dense) each of the 36 situations have variations listed under them with examples. So there's a lot to mine here as a writer. To me, when I see a movie that feels derivative, it's usually a product of being able to see the strings. I think the great films (or books/plays/shows) all have pretty common and well worn structures/concpets/conceits but what makes them work is that the writer/director/actors found a new way to tell an old story. Usual Suspects is a GREAT one to analyze for this ... if I had to guess, I'd say it's a combination of: The Enigma, Pursuit, and Obtaining ... (there's a mystery, a heist and somewhat of a chase). Right? Maybe I'm wrong.

Congrats, man!!! Good stuff!

I actually think I messed it up in my post (which is funny for numerous reasons). I went back and searched through my books and found out it is 36. This according to Georges Polti. Of course, this is from 1916, but it still holds (in my opinion) -- every story ever told is basically one or a combination of several of these 36 situations. So, if you buy Polti's argument that there are a limit to the types of stories you can tell, you start to see why storytellers (in all forms) struggle to find that "original" idea. Truth is, everything has already been done. It's just about finding a new hook or angle to tell a familiar story and write it well enough that the audience (who has become far more astute and knowledgeable due to the the popularity of film and tv in the past 100 years or so) can't see the strings. Here are Polti's 36 "Dramatic Situations" (sorry for the list!) -Supplication (Basically a situation where someone in power makes a dubious decision which affects someone without power) -Deliverance (rescue, in all its forms) -Crime Pursued by Vengeance (Direct revenge) -Vengeance taken for Kindred upon Kindred (Family revenge) -Pursuit (Punishment & Fugitive) -Disaster -Falling Prey to Cruelty or Misfortune -Revolt -Daring Enterprise (a goal with a bold leader and adversary) -Abduction -The Enigma (interrogator, seeker, and problem) -Obtaining (A solicitor and an adversary who is refusing) -Enmity of Kinsmen -Rivalry of Kinsmen -Murderous Adultery -Madness -Fatal Imprudence -Involuntary Crimes of Love -Slaying of a Kinsmen Unrecognized (Slayer & Unrecognized Victim) -Self Sacrifice for an Ideal -Self Sacrifice for Kindred -All Sacrifice for Passion -Necessity of Sacrificing Loved Ones -Rivalry of Superior and Inferior -Adultery -Crimes of Love -Discovery of the Dishonor of a Loved One -Obstacles to Love -An Enemy Loved -Ambition -Struggle Against God -Mistaken Jealousy -Erroneous Judgment -Remorse -Recovery of a Lost Loved One -Loss of Loved Ones There's also an interesting phenomenon in Hollywood where the studio executives are, by and large, under 40. Which means there's a tremendous amount of turnover amongst the first line of gate keepers (the ones who decide which projects get passed on to the big bosses). Which means that for some of these execs, they either grew up LOVING Total Recall as a kid or, more likely, being born well after it's popularity waned. So when they discover it on DVD they think, "this is brilliant! No one will remember this movie and we can make it awesome!" That's an exaggeration of course, but some of the conversations you have in meetings are ... terrifying. But, despite this, there are still some fabulous and very talented execs in the business who fight hard for original ideas and materials. They tend to be the ones that the best writers, directors and actors want to work with.

It's true and you raise an interesting point. I have a theory or viewpoint that isn't all too popular but I think it holds. Basically it's that people forget that theater (which is all movies are at their core) has been around for thousands of years. Since people could speak, storytellers have existed. No one complains when a new production of Miller or Shakespeare gets under way. And those are line for line remakes. But film has the added (and unrealistic) expectations that it has to be original every time to be compelling. There are only 47 stories that can be told. What makes each one feel fresh is the voice the filmmakers bring to the material. (this is not a popular opinion in town)

This isn't really true. There are plenty of original ideas in Hollywood this very moment. And some of them are amazingly awesome. But sadly, there's far less risk in betting 150 million dollars on an existing property than there is in betting on something unknown. It's silly when you think about it logically -- but that's sometimes the sad reality of the business side of Hollywood.

No blocking of any kind at my old job (my new one is sans office). Though, I'm fairly certain everyone at my old office is on a watch list of some kind due to our web searches. Trying to find new ways to kill someone (on TV) involves a lot of fu*&ed up web searches. Our FBI techs were always trying to put the fear of big brother into us about that.

TBD, Deadlinehollywood, ESPN, cbssports, ilovecrayonz.net, CNN, Sigalert -- I'm sure I'm forgetting one or two. Cool! I'm a Terrier too!

You're again lumping casual fans together with Die Hard fans. Every team has it's Die Hards that root for their team no matter what. You can have a successful league catering only to those fans and those fans alone. But you don't become the giant the NFL has become ove the past two decades with only Die Hards. The largest portion of fans rare casual -- they root for good teams who have good players. Players sell the games, not the teams. Watch any lead in to any nationally televised game and you'll see that's just a fact. Put it in other terms. I worked on a top ten show for awhile that drew about 13 million viewers a week. But, the network wanted NEW viewers which led to massive casting shakeups to get younger (and cheaper) ... The numbers plummeted. The show was the same. Same concept. Same stories. New, unknown cast? Our numbers dropped by over half. Those that stayed are the die Hards. The ones that would watch anything our show did because they were loyal. So what did the network do? They brought back the old cast and the numbers went back up instantly. Spin it however you like, the bulk of NFL fans are casual fans. They change their loyalty to teams based on who has the most exciting players. To believe otherwise is just ignoring the truth.

Ha! The Whole Foods in the video is the one I go to. It !@#$ing BLOWS trying to park there.

I am NOT saying that there are never any replacements to be found. I AM saying that finding the next Brady, Manning or Favre is NOT easy. They do not grow on trees as some would suggest. Same with actors. If they did, we would have found the Next Kelly and Bruce the very next year after they retire. Right? I mean, if it's so easy to replace these guys, then there should never be any excuse for any team to ever have a dearth in talent, right? Oh wait, but it just doesn't work that way. Because elite talent is rare. Which is why the elite players, the ones who carry the league and bring in more revenue than any other aspect of the NFL (owners, teams, marketing, merchandise etc), are rewarded so richly. If players were NOT the reason fans tune in to the game, you'd NEVER see an owner willing to pay someone a 30 million dollar signing bonus. Ever. But they do. Why? The majority of NFL fans do NOT root for one team. Heck, even the people on this board who I know are die-hards have "second teams". And those "second teams" are never the Cleveland Browns or Jaguars. Casual fans, the overwhelming majority of the NFL's audience, root for GOOD teams. Good teams means GOOD players. Fans like us, the Die Hards (of which there are many) complain all the time about "rooting for the laundry" -- yet the majority of NFL fans change allegiances based on talent. In the 80s and 90s when the Bills were constantly in the playoffs and the Super Bowl, they had fans around the country. Young kids who LOVED the Bills because they saw them every weekend on TV kicking butt. Go to a city outside of WNY now and try to find a Bills fan under the age of 18 that doesn't have parents who are Bills fans. You won't find many, if any. Why? Because no one cares about the Bills on a national level because they have been awful for over a decade. We love them because we don't know any better. But we're not casual fans ... The point is that it is a star driven league. Just like the movies are driven by the actors -- not the studios that make the movies. Do you look at which studio releases a movie before you see it? Do you say, "nah, I am a Warner Brother's guy, screw Paramount". No, you go to a movie the same way most fans choose their teams -- by who's the most entertaining. It's funny that in your examples you name three QBs. It's not a mystery as to why the NFL rating exploded the past two decades in terms of TV ratings and dollars. It coincides nicely with the rule changes the League made to up scoring. The average fan doesn't care about three yards and a cloud of dust, they want points. Lots of them. They want BIG hits and LONG passes. The league changed the game itself to cater to those all important casual fans. The same ones that will walk away from the NFL if the 2011 season is lost. The same ones that account for the majority of the TV ratings and revenue streams. Fans like you, me, and even WEO (if he is a fan, I still don't think he is) will come back after the lock out regardless of how long it lasts because we are die hard fans. The casual fan? Maybe not. All this ridiculous BS that people are spouting in this thread about the product being "the game" is absolute horse-****. The product is, and always has been, the players. If it wasn't, then the game would still be without the forward pass. The league changed the rules of the game itself to cater to the players who have the most star power: QBs because long passes, touchdowns and big hits appeal to the overwhelming majority of casual fans. The NFL does not exist without the players. They are who the fans pay to see. They are who the networks pay to broadcast. Without star players, the NFL is the WNBA.

There is so much wrong with (everything) you say in this post it's comical. Here's a helpful TSW tip: before posting something, be sure you know what you're talking about. First: Yes, fans root for their teams, but you're forgetting that the majority of fans in the NFL are CASUAL fans. We happen to be posting on a Buffalo Bills website right now -- which means that by definition everyone on here is a Die Hard fan (even if it's not of the Bills). We are the minority. Far more fans watch the NFL to see the best teams of the moment. There's a reason why the Patriots ratings went through the roof once they started to win championships. The population of New England didn't suddenly expand in that time period. Hell, half the people in Boston were Giants fans before 2001. What makes them switch? Winning. What makes teams win in the NFL? The teams with the best players. Brady and BB alone made Kraft the "genius" that people claim he is now. It has NOTHING to do with how he ran his business model. Zip. It had everything to do with winning football games and lucking into a super star QB that became the face of the franchise. If majority of fans only rooted for "their team" as you say, then every team's attendance record would always remain essentially static. But they don't. Which proves that you're wrong. The majority of fans come and go based on the quality of the team. Die Hards remain -- but those are the minority. To think otherwise is just ignorant. Like all of your posts on this matter. Second: The Bills have been GREATLY impacted by their inferior play for the past decade. They've lost countless scores of casual fans, season ticket sales are down (numbers not money since ticket prices have risen), ratings for their games have never been lower (the networks don't want them to get prime time games because of this), in short, without revenue sharing they would be losing money. Why? Has little to do with Buffalo's economy (though that certainly plays a role), it has far more to do with the fact that the Bills have been terrible because they constantly have one of the least talented rosters in the NFL. Casual fans don't want to watch the Bills. And casual fans are the backbone of the TV audience. The NFL is not the entertainment giant it is without TV contracts. The TV contracts account for more income than any other revenue stream for the Owners. But Networks aren't stupid. If you took all the star power out of the NFL tomorrow, the TV contracts would dry up faster than the last chick you tried to flirt with. (okay, that's unfair, you might get lots of ladies. I mean who wouldn't want to bang ya based on your limited IQ, irrational nature, distorted perception of the world and your inability to play well with others ... you're a catch!) Okay, fine, let's bring it to this world because as you say, the NFL is just entertainment. You're right, the Players are just like the actors in Hollywood. And do you know what the number one thing Studio heads in Hollywood ask when they are deciding whether or not to green light a movie? What's the ONE thing that makes or breaks a movie's chances of being made, marketed and distributed? "Who's the star?" Yup. That's all that matters. It's not the budget, it's not the script, it's not the producer, it's not the AD, it's not the production coordinator, it's not the writer, it's not the grip, it's not the location, it's not the genre, it's not the quality of the story, it's not the studio -- it's THE STAR. Why? Because the studios and networks know people don't pay 13 dollars to sit in a movie theater and watch the best damn grip in town. They don't even pay 13 dollars to watch the best producers unless they're either behind the camera or in front of it. But they will pay 13 dollars to go see George Clooney or Matt Damon. It's ALWAYS about the star. Without the stars, the Studios don't make money. Without the stars, the networks don't get ratings. Without ratings, there's no ad dollars. With no ad dollars, there's no networks. That's why agencies exist -- to PACKAGE their clients. A hot script (in your analogy this would be the team) is nothing in Hollywood without the right "packaging". And the right packaging means attaching someone who can open the movie. There are VERY few people who can do that. And they cannot just be replaced by other actors off the street even though there are more actors in this town than there are cockroaches. No studio is going to bankroll 150 million dollar movie staring Joe Schmoe and Jimmy French. Just like no TV network is going to fork over BILLIONS of dollars to the NFL to air games featuring WEO and Tgreg99. So despite all your blustering at Doc (and everyone else) you once again end up not only making yourself out to be a fool -- but proving the other side's point. Thanks. Now relax and go have a drink.

Just like 99% of your posts.

That's revisionist history at its worst. We wouldn't be in this situation if the Owners hadn't opted out of the CBA. Or, if you wish to go back further, we wouldn't be in this situation if the Owners hadn't rushed to get a bad CBA done and signed before realizing its flaws. So ... to sum up, we wouldn't be in this position if the Owners didn't want us to be in this position.

A carbon copy of the first ... for better and worse.

You're shifting the argument now. I am NOT, in any way shape or form, defending the NFLPA and how it operates. I tend to agree with a lot of what you say, especially the second paragraph. The point in question is whether or not the Owners taking an extra one billion off the top represents a cut to the NFLPA and its members. I've never made the argument that the only reason the Owners won't open their books is because they can't prove it. The whole point of bringing up the McCourt case was to prove that there's MORE than one reason as to why the Owners won't open their books. All I've said is that by NOT opening their books it causes the players and the public to question whether or not the Owners CAN prove it. And rightly so. That's all.

You guys are hung up on "pay cut". Fine. Let's call it a cut. Take pay out of it. Explain to me how taking away an extra billion dollars from the NFLPA is not a cut? That impacts: health care, retirement and pension plans, the future value of contracts, and numerous other programs the union provides for its members. You guys have it twisted. You're focused on individual players. That's NOT what this is about. It never has been. It's about the group. To think that taking an extra billion (or 300 million) away from the union and its members is anything other than a massive cut is like trying to prove that the sun revolves around the earth. You can make a compelling argument sure, but at the end of the day you're just wrong. That's fine. No one is arguing that point (that I've noticed). No one is saying that the Owners are doing anything illegal. They didn't breach any contracts. They aren't refusing to honor some court order. What people are saying (well, at least what I'm saying) is that the Owners are making claims in the negotiations that the cuts are necessary to the long term future of the league but they refuse to show any proof to support this claim. Instead, they are taking the position that it's their league they can do what they want. That is true. But it doesn't make their argument compelling. Instead it does the opposite. It makes everyone suspicious. And you would think if they COULD prove it, they would because that would mean a quick end to this whole situation ... but since they won't prove it, it makes you wonder if they can. That's all.

I am trying to understand what you're trying to say (especially in the first sentence) ... I think you're saying I'm double talking? But it's hard to read. Still ... if you look at what I actually said, I used the McCourt case as an example of why the Owners don't want their books gone over with a fine tooth comb. I was NOT saying that every owner has the same level of shenanigans that McCourt did. Even if the owners have nothing to hide, the McCourt case shows why they would be protective of their books. The last thing they want to do is have the NFLPA find any embarrassing financial information (from something as benign as over paying a relative to something as severe as diverting team funds into personal accounts) and have that splashed all over the papers in what has become a fairly hostile PR war between the union and owners. In other words, I was backing you up. Saying that a "conspiracy theory" isn't needed to explain why the owners wouldn't want their books opened. You rightly point out that the CBA does not require the owners to open their books. The owners don't have a legal obligation to do so. But then again, it makes it very difficult for the public, let alone the players, to believe them when they cry poor. After all, the recent track record of big corporations and their shady financials (that crippled the world economy) does not lend itself to taking these men "on their word". So then the question becomes what's more important to these Owners? Proving their point that a change in the economy of the NFL is needed to keep the league afloat or protecting their own financial privacy from a potentially embarrassing PR battle? You would think that if the financial situation was as dire as you, WEO, Ramius and others seem to think it is, they would happily show the financials just to take away the Player's leverage. Of course this is all moot. The Owners don't care about what the public thinks of them, they clearly don't care about the fans that support their teams, they also don't care about their partners. What they care about is making as much money as possible for themselves individually. That's cool. That's their right. But it sure sucks for people who like to watch the game of football.

It's not a lie. The Owners currently take 1 billion off the top before revenue sharing. Their initial offer proposed taking an addition 1 billion off the top before revenue sharing. That number was reduced in the last second negotiations -- but it's still a cut. Is it reflected in any current contracts? No. Is it reflected in future contracts? You bet'cha. Does it have a long term impact on future players in the league? Absolutely. A union's job is to protect its members. All members. Past (something they do poorly), present AND future. Taking an extra 1 billion or even 340 million off the top of the shared pie without offering any lick of proof that it's a needed step to protect the long term interest of the league is a pay CUT. Plain and simple. It impacts all three segments of the NFLPA's membership in different degrees (future and past take the hardest hits). So yeah. It's a cut. To think otherwise is ... well, just lying to yourself.

I think you missed the point ... or I missed your sarcasm? The point isn't that it would be meaningless, quite the opposite in fact.