How long til VEI gets 5% market share?

[acc205]

I have your wrench right here, heh.

A movie can make millions if there's an audience for it, if there's enough product based on it, and if the contracts are done right.

Plus, most money today tends to come from the movie AND the soundtrack.

Let me put it like this:

A few years ago I signed a contract with Platinum Studios that said that the biggest piece of royalties I would ever see on my property would be like 40% off whatever Platinum would get from the soundtrack.

That 40% was the highest % of royalty of anything else in the contract as far an ancilery product was concerned.

As owner of the property, I would have stand to make 85,000 USD if they made a movie out of it if the budget fell anywhere between 20 and 40 million dollars, and 125,000 if the budget was 90 million or more.

And that was bonus money for me just as the writer, it didn't include any other %.

Imagine how much money VEI could get out of a movie deal.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

ugh... my head hurts...

Yours and mine both. I'm done banging my head against that wall.

Takes two to bang, buddy.

Glad to see you saw the light, though. You were up against a semantics monster, and it's just a game you shouldn't be playing....

So, anyway, I'm saying 38 months. Anybody else have a guess?

Odds are, sadly, never.

[ManofTheAtom]

Coverage, marketting, quality content, and output are going to help VALIANT establish itself, so how long it takes for their sales to go up to a significant number depends on how much coverage and marketting they do before they launch their first series, on people embracing the content of what they publish, and on their output being sufficiently high for their combined sales to help them gain a spot in the sales chart.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

I have your wrench right here, heh.

A movie can make millions if there's an audience for it, if there's enough product based on it, and if the contracts are done right.

Um.

The "contracts" deal only with how and how much the people involved make.

They have nothing to do with whether or not a movie will attract an audience.

All the product in the world won't mean a damn if the film ends up being crap.

Have you ever heard of the film Ishtar.....?

Plus, most money today tends to come from the movie AND the soundtrack.

This is like watching an episode of the Twilight Zone.

Typical soundtracks sell between 50,000-100,000 copies for any given movie.

Soundtracks with works by "famous artists" CAN sell 1 million or more copies, but the people seeing THAT money are....AGAIN...the studio and the artists.

And if you think for a second that the artists will fork over that money, well, that's another fantasy.

Let me put it like this:

A few years ago I signed a contract with Platinum Studios that said that the biggest piece of royalties I would ever see on my property would be like 40% off whatever Platinum would get from the soundtrack.

That 40% was the highest % of royalty of anything else in the contract as far an ancilery product was concerned.

As owner of the property, I would have stand to make 85,000 USD if they made a movie out of it if the budget fell anywhere between 20 and 40 million dollars, and 125,000 if the budget was 90 million or more.

Speaking of making your head hurt...

Dude. You have NO CLUE what that really means. The BUDGET means NOTHING other than what producers may spend to MAKE a movie.

I don't know the specifics of YOUR contract (and it's complete fiction as far as typical entertainment contracts go), but MOST contracts with CREATORS/COPYRIGHT HOLDERS give them a TINY token amount of money up front (generally between $5,000-$50,000) and then a percentage of the PROFITS (MAYBE, depending on how good their agent is)...that means if the film makes NO profit, the creators get zilch.

Tank Girl is a GREAT example.

Even NOVELISTS, who typically make the largest percentage of their creations in entertainment, only get an ADVANCE (that is, money UP FRONT to write a work), and that's based on how popular they are, how many books they've sold in the past, etc., and then get a percentage of the PROFITS, not GROSSES.

The fact of the matter is, it's not the CREATOR taking the risk...it's the studio. And if the studio is taking the risk, it's the studio that's making the money.

And that was bonus money for me just as the writer, it didn't include any other %.

Imagine how much money VEI could get out of a movie deal.

And I signed a contract with Foo-Foo Fantasy Films for 398% of all money made from the sale of Foo-Foo Poo Flinger dolls....still doesn't mean I ever saw any money.

40% of fantasy =.....?

You just have no clue how the film industry works.

<shudder>

[ManofTheAtom]

Have you ever heard of the film Ishtar.....?

Telling the truth can be dangerous business.
Honest and popular don't go hand in hand.
If you admit that you can play the accordion,
No one'll hire you in a rock 'n' roll band.

Ishtar is not as bad as people say it is

Typical soundtracks sell between 50,000-100,000 copies for any given movie.

Stop being such a pessimist.

I'm not suggesting that a movie based on X-O be a "typical" movie, I'm suggesting that it done right it can make money, which would be the point.

I'm not saying that they should make X-O Manowar: The movie like "Plan Nine From Outer Space".

Soundtracks with works by "famous artists" CAN sell 1 million or more copies, but the people seeing THAT money are....AGAIN...the studio and the artists.

And if you think for a second that the artists will fork over that money, well, that's another fantasy.

In your view the owners of the concept don't see any money at all, have you noticed that?

Dude. You have NO CLUE what that really means. The BUDGET means NOTHING other than what producers may spend to MAKE a movie.

No?, really? Duh...

And I signed a contract with Foo-Foo Fantasy Films for 398% of all money made from the sale of Foo-Foo Poo Flinger dolls....still doesn't mean I ever saw any money.

40% of fantasy =.....?

You just have no clue how the film industry works.

And you seem to be convinced that no matter what a VALIANT movie won't make any money for the people that own the concept.

I believe you missed the part where I mentioned the contracts being done right so that VEI can benefit from a deal. You must think that I suggested that VEI should enter into a contract were they give away their right to any money.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

Have you ever heard of the film Ishtar.....?

Telling the truth can be dangerous business.
Honest and popular don't go hand in hand.
If you admit that you can play the accordion,
No one'll hire you in a rock 'n' roll band.

Ishtar is not as bad as people say it is

Utterly irrelevant.

This is not about "good" or "bad", and never has been. This discussion is about show BUSINESS. They don't call it show BUSINESS for nothing.

The fact of the matter is, Ishtar had the finest artists in Hollywood in ALL aspects.....

And it was a SPECTACULAR, SPECTACULAR FLOP.

It NEARLY sank Columbia.

Typical soundtracks sell between 50,000-100,000 copies for any given movie.

Stop being such a pessimist.

You truly...truly...have no clue how the film industry works. This has nothing to do with "pessimism."

Am I a pessimist if I state that Armorines Vol 2 #4 had a print run of less than 5,000?

No, I am, as above, simply quoting data.

Lord.

I'm not suggesting that a movie based on X-O be a "typical" movie, I'm suggesting that it done right it can make money, which would be the point.

Pay attention, because this is critical: NO ONE SETS OUT TO LOSE MONEY ON A FILM.

Got it?

No one WANTS to finance a loser.

HOWEVER....

The reality is, MOST of the films made by the studios in a given year DO NOT MAKE MONEY.

It is the Pirates of the Caribbean, the Spidermans, the X-Mens, the Batmans that ALLOW the studios to MAKE movies that MIGHT flop.

Being "good" guarantees NOTHING. Some of the best films EVER MADE LOST LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of MONEY.

And NO ONE KNOWS if a film will be a loser or not unless A. it's abundantly clear by the inferior quality, OR B. until it's ACTUALLY MADE AND RELEASED.

I'm not saying that they should make X-O Manowar: The movie like "Plan Nine From Outer Space".

Soundtracks with works by "famous artists" CAN sell 1 million or more copies, but the people seeing THAT money are....AGAIN...the studio and the artists.

And if you think for a second that the artists will fork over that money, well, that's another fantasy.

In your view the owners of the concept don't see any money at all, have you noticed that?

Welcome to Hollywood, buddy. That's just another sad, cold, hard fact of

Guess how much Margaret Mitchell (THE AUTHOR) made from Gone With The Wind, the movie (the most succesful film of ALL TIME)?

(and you're doing it again, MOTA...you're putting YOUR interpretations on what you think other people have said, and then quoting THEM as having said it. You always get in trouble for that. Stop doing it.)

Dude. You have NO CLUE what that really means. The BUDGET means NOTHING other than what producers may spend to MAKE a movie.

No?, really? Duh...

Then why on EARTH did you state that you would make "such and such percentage based on the BUDGET"???

And I signed a contract with Foo-Foo Fantasy Films for 398% of all money made from the sale of Foo-Foo Poo Flinger dolls....still doesn't mean I ever saw any money.

40% of fantasy =.....?

You just have no clue how the film industry works.

And you seem to be convinced that no matter what a VALIANT movie won't make any money for the people that own the concept.

(You're doing it again. Nobody said anything of the sort. This is just a discussion of REALITY and ODDS. Nothing more, nothing less.)

I believe you missed the part where I mentioned the contracts being done right so that VEI can benefit from a deal.

I believe YOU missed the part where such contracts being "done right" would NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER exist, unless VEI BECAME it's OWN FILM STUDIO (CLEARLY not out of the realm of possibility, but not LIKELY.)

DEFINE "benefit." Make $20? Make $2,000? Make $20,000? Make $2 million?

You must think that I suggested that VEI should enter into a contract were they give away their right to any money.

No, MOTA, putting words into other people's mouth is what YOU do, not me.

You really need to stop being an all-or-nothing guy, MOTA. You need to read about the film industry before you speak. You need to understand that just because someone doesn't agree 100% with YOUR vision doesn't mean that they are therefore TOTALLY OPPOSED to it.

[ManofTheAtom]

Then why on EARTH did you state that you would make "such and such percentage based on the BUDGET"???

I said BONUS based on the budget. Pay attention.

[Heath]

I don't know the specifics of YOUR contract (and it's complete fiction as far as typical entertainment contracts go), but MOST contracts with CREATORS/COPYRIGHT HOLDERS give them a TINY token amount of money up front (generally between $5,000-$50,000) and then a percentage of the PROFITS (MAYBE, depending on how good their agent is)...that means if the film makes NO profit, the creators get zilch.

And Hollywood has a way of making sure that as few films as possible actually show a profit - regardless of how much money they rake in compared to how much it cost to make the money.

JMS explained about Babylon 5 once that, despite the series being under budget every year, despite the huge amount of sales from the DVDs, despite the enormous amount of money made off of licensed products, Warner Bros.' "creative accounting" still shows the Babylon 5 production as being in the red. One example he used to show how they do this is that if another movie goes over budget, or a studio for another movie/series burns down, they can charge that loss against Babylon 5 (or anything else showing a profit). Profits on one production are eliminated by losses on another production. That way, the studio gets out of having to pay royalties, incentives, residuals, etc.

[depluto]

I don't know the specifics of YOUR contract (and it's complete fiction as far as typical entertainment contracts go), but MOST contracts with CREATORS/COPYRIGHT HOLDERS give them a TINY token amount of money up front (generally between $5,000-$50,000) and then a percentage of the PROFITS (MAYBE, depending on how good their agent is)...that means if the film makes NO profit, the creators get zilch.

And Hollywood has a way of making sure that as few films as possible actually show a profit - regardless of how much money they rake in compared to how much it cost to make the money.

JMS explained about Babylon 5 once that, despite the series being under budget every year, despite the huge amount of sales from the DVDs, despite the enormous amount of money made off of licensed products, Warner Bros.' "creative accounting" still shows the Babylon 5 production as being in the red. One example he used to show how they do this is that if another movie goes over budget, or a studio for another movie/series burns down, they can charge that loss against Babylon 5 (or anything else showing a profit). Profits on one production are eliminated by losses on another production. That way, the studio gets out of having to pay royalties, incentives, residuals, etc.

Ayup, that was pretty laughable when the lawyers were trying to explain to Stan Lee that the Spider-Man movie didn't make a profit.

[BrianT]

Takes two to bang, buddy.

Since we're talking sematics here, it only takes one to bang, the other is the wall. I already called being the headbanger.

Glad to see you saw the light, though. You were up against a semantics monster, and it's just a game you shouldn't be playing....

Yeah, the light was the stack of 30 comics I bought on Wednesday. Time much better spent.

Odds are, sadly, never.

Oh your realism is no fun.

[BrianT]

I don't know the specifics of YOUR contract (and it's complete fiction as far as typical entertainment contracts go), but MOST contracts with CREATORS/COPYRIGHT HOLDERS give them a TINY token amount of money up front (generally between $5,000-$50,000) and then a percentage of the PROFITS (MAYBE, depending on how good their agent is)...that means if the film makes NO profit, the creators get zilch.

And Hollywood has a way of making sure that as few films as possible actually show a profit - regardless of how much money they rake in compared to how much it cost to make the money.

JMS explained about Babylon 5 once that, despite the series being under budget every year, despite the huge amount of sales from the DVDs, despite the enormous amount of money made off of licensed products, Warner Bros.' "creative accounting" still shows the Babylon 5 production as being in the red. One example he used to show how they do this is that if another movie goes over budget, or a studio for another movie/series burns down, they can charge that loss against Babylon 5 (or anything else showing a profit). Profits on one production are eliminated by losses on another production. That way, the studio gets out of having to pay royalties, incentives, residuals, etc.

Man, I would love to see the wording on those contracts.

[BrianT]

You really need to stop being an all-or-nothing guy, MOTA. [...] You need to understand that just because someone doesn't agree 100% with YOUR vision doesn't mean that they are therefore TOTALLY OPPOSED to it.

Truer words, my friend.

Say, ZWH!, you read Manhunter? Good book.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

Then why on EARTH did you state that you would make "such and such percentage based on the BUDGET"???

I said BONUS based on the budget. Pay attention.

There's no such thing in the film industry. The industry doesn't give "bonuses"...it gives POINTS, which are percentages of things like gross receipts, profits, etc.

Pay attention.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

I don't know the specifics of YOUR contract (and it's complete fiction as far as typical entertainment contracts go), but MOST contracts with CREATORS/COPYRIGHT HOLDERS give them a TINY token amount of money up front (generally between $5,000-$50,000) and then a percentage of the PROFITS (MAYBE, depending on how good their agent is)...that means if the film makes NO profit, the creators get zilch.

And Hollywood has a way of making sure that as few films as possible actually show a profit - regardless of how much money they rake in compared to how much it cost to make the money.

JMS explained about Babylon 5 once that, despite the series being under budget every year, despite the huge amount of sales from the DVDs, despite the enormous amount of money made off of licensed products, Warner Bros.' "creative accounting" still shows the Babylon 5 production as being in the red. One example he used to show how they do this is that if another movie goes over budget, or a studio for another movie/series burns down, they can charge that loss against Babylon 5 (or anything else showing a profit). Profits on one production are eliminated by losses on another production. That way, the studio gets out of having to pay royalties, incentives, residuals, etc.

EXACTLY.

You have to have POWERFUL lawyers, or POWERFUL PR men, to prevent this

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

Takes two to bang, buddy.

Since we're talking sematics here, it only takes one to bang, the other is the wall. I already called being the headbanger.

Well, I try not to bang walls....the drywall is too hard on the unit. I prefer having a partner.

I thought you were done banging your head against it, though...?

Glad to see you saw the light, though. You were up against a semantics monster, and it's just a game you shouldn't be playing....

Yeah, the light was the stack of 30 comics I bought on Wednesday. Time much better spent.

Well, I dunno....a lot of the folks here ENJOY watching the tangle.

Odds are, sadly, never.

Oh your realism is no fun.

<shrug> Them's the odds, though.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

You really need to stop being an all-or-nothing guy, MOTA. [...] You need to understand that just because someone doesn't agree 100% with YOUR vision doesn't mean that they are therefore TOTALLY OPPOSED to it.

Truer words, my friend.

Say, ZWH!, you read Manhunter? Good book.

Why, are you the writer...?

I don't read new books....I have an ethical issue with paying $3 for a new comic book, especially when costs and inflation don't justify that price.

[BrianT]

Nope, not the writer. Just a good book. How bout trades? You get those? With the discount Amazon and other places give you it cuts the per issue cost well below $3. There's also the "Fell" format, which I believe is $1.99 for 16 pages.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

Nope, not the writer. Just a good book. How bout trades? You get those? With the discount Amazon and other places give you it cuts the per issue cost well below $3. There's also the "Fell" format, which I believe is $1.99 for 16 pages.

I have an issue with trades that cost more than the original comics cost.

That's just profiteering by the publisher.

If the original books cost $15, the trade shouldn't cost $20.

To give you an idea of how far behind I am on my reading....

I JUST finished, in the last two months or so, reading X-Men #174-193...

That's UNCANNY X-Men...

[andrew]

i always find it amazing that the zephyrwashot-esque poster that is on each message board never gets tired of posting. i guess that's why they're there, though.

[Rufusharley]

i always find it amazing that the zephyrwashot-esque poster that is on each message board never gets tired of posting. i guess that's why they're there, though.

Wouldn't have it any other way.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

i always find it amazing that the zephyrwashot-esque poster that is on each message board never gets tired of posting. i guess that's why they're there, though.

Wouldn't have it any other way.

Awwww...

Hugs?

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

i always find it amazing that the zephyrwashot-esque poster that is on each message board never gets tired of posting. i guess that's why they're there, though.

What do you mean, "-esque"????

You didn't know??

That's ME!



I never get tired of spewing useless crap, it's true.

The brilliance, of course, is that I don't pretend it's not useless, or that I'm not spewing.... I like to think that endears me to most.....

[depluto]

i always find it amazing that the zephyrwashot-esque poster that is on each message board never gets tired of posting. i guess that's why they're there, though.

What's really amazing is it's actually the same guy on every board. He is four feet tall, lives in a condo in Idaho and does nothing but drink Jagermeister and post on the internet. All day, every day.

He posts here as ZWH, but he doesn't even collect comics. He's just gathered up all this information by reading posts here.

It's the damndest thing. I think he's really just a computer program.

[Rufusharley]

i always find it amazing that the zephyrwashot-esque poster that is on each message board never gets tired of posting. i guess that's why they're there, though.

Wouldn't have it any other way.

Awwww...

Hugs?

Well it's either that or...err...nevermind.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

i always find it amazing that the zephyrwashot-esque poster that is on each message board never gets tired of posting. i guess that's why they're there, though.

What's really amazing is it's actually the same guy on every board. He is four feet tall, lives in a condo in Idaho and does nothing but drink Jagermeister and post on the internet. All day, every day.

Heh. I beat you to the punch.

He posts here as ZWH, but he doesn't even collect comics. He's just gathered up all this information by reading posts here.

It's the damndest thing. I think he's really just a computer program.

There are 10 types of people in the world:

Those who understand binary.

And those who don't.