Automatically embedding has been temporarily turned off until the Twitter bug has been fixed. This will only affect new posts made. Once the issue has been fixed, automatic embedding will return. It is possible to manually embed content I believe. If you quote a post with an embedded tweet, please delete the tweet.

Welcome to The Box Office Theory — Forums

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Tele Came Back

Forum Admin
  • Content count

    62,884
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

118,829 Likes

4 Followers

About Tele Came Back

  • Rank
    Loser by 0.29%
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    Blame franfar

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    West Covinaaaaa

Recent Profile Visitors

12,236 profile views
  1. It doesn't mean automatically mean worsening product, but it does mean less overall choice.
  2. I'm hardly an expert in WGA contracts nor do I have any personal experience with them. However, my understanding is that any sums paid out are divided per specific percentage among the various credited writers. ("Written by" means "Story by" and "Screenplay by", so the writer or writing team gets all of it; "Story by" and "Screenplay by" get split up -- I think "story by" is worth like 30-something percent and "screenplay by" 60-something, but I'm not gonna dive into the details listed cuz I'm lazy). But from the studio's perspective, yes, I believe what they pay out doesn't reflect whether a movie has one credited writer or several. The exception would be if a writer was powerful enough to negotiate a different rate -- the WGA numbers are guaranteed minimums. (At least in terms of fees paid for writing; residuals may be locked into a specific rate regardless of contract). And of course, residuals are not the same as gross points or net points or anything else that the studio and writer negotiate.
  3. There are various channels: NFL Network (doesn't have many live games but exclusively NFL content and occasionally older games or classic games); NFL Redzone (all games live, switches to games with scoring threats on the fly); NFL All Access (you can watch any game live). NFL Network is usually a premium add-on channel (often packaged with other sports channels), Redzone is usually an add-on by itself (for like $15/mo) and NFL All Access is (I think) something like $200/yr depending on your provider (and I don't think it's offered through all providers, it's mainly a DirecTV thing, I think).
  4. He's an amazing talent but I tend to like his earlier stuff the best. JACKIE BROWN is probably tops for me.
  5. Yeah, but that'd kill whatever licensing fees they're getting from advertisers, I think. The format is inherently annoying (IMO). There are plenty of personalities that I enjoy on their own -- I was a big fan of the Max Kellerman & Marcellus Wiley show that used to regularly air on ESPN Radio out here in LA. But in the context of "this talking head must excitedly debate and argue with that talking head", it's horribly annoying.
  6. ^^ Also, despite the numbers getting thrown around, most writers aren't millionaires or anywhere close to it. At a guess, probably a majority of them barely scrape by.
  7. And also what @GiantCALBears and @Nova and others have been saying: In the grand scheme of things, ESPN is basically a victim of their own success. Clearly they've followed the business model of the cable news networks, giving you sports-related content 24/7/365. But the problem is that (for the most part) there usually isn't some major sporting event or major sports story every minute. So almost by necessity they have to recycle/drive existing "news stories" by having all their personalities talk about them endlessly (not unlike what happens on cable news). But this really isn't sports, anymore -- and even the actual sports stories get driven into the ground. I think most Americans who follow sports avidly would like to see the sports and maybe key analysis about current and recent events... and that's about it. But without embracing a lot of sports that Americans traditionally haven't cared that much about (soccer, rugby, cricket, F1, etc) I don't see how ESPN can keep their 24/7/365 model going without all the same bullshit that they're doing now. They've probably overpaid for a lot of their top-dollar personalities, probably overpaid (to some degree) for the rights of some of the leagues, and now they're stuck. Personally, I'm pretty sure I'm like a lot of people in that when I watch them, I watch for the sports: college football, NBA playoffs (sometimes), Sunday night baseball, the NFL, etc. I rarely watch any of their other programming and to the extent that I do, it's basically SportsCenter or something to catch highlights. I have zero interest in the talking heads endlessly debating some "controversy".
  8. Yeah, I think you're barking up the wrong tree here.
  9. Brutal, man. If that happens people like me are pretty much fucked.
  10. But the criticism of Disney is that they're basically just cranking out more of the same. This -- for better or worse -- is gonna be entirely its own thing.
  11. I don't think it's intentionally a diversity thing, I think it's that the jobs they decided to reduce have primarily and traditionally been heavily white-dude non-athletes.
  12. Yes, but we also recognize that people have different tastes, and some people (in particular the demographics who made up the Academy back then) were more likely to like other kinds of movies than what Spielberg was making. I know people who literally don't get *any* kind of science fiction because "the creatures look ugly". So that's a hit against movies like E.T.
  13. I haven't seen a list of everyone let go, but from what I *have* seen, it's not the haranguing talking heads getting fired, it's the beat reporters and those actually reporting on sports activities and news. Seems like exactly the wrong approach to take.
  14. ESPN lectures about social justice on SportsCenter?
  15. I completely get that attitude, for some of his movies. For the others (early in his career), generally speaking the Academy tends not to award young wunderkinds until they've amassed a bigger body of work (exceptions occasionally in the Actress and Supporting Actress categories). And there's always been a trend to ignore pop entertainment unless there's some deeper thematic roots. So Spielberg had the double whammy of being young with some giant pop hits, while his earlier dramatic stuff wasn't as well received. E.T. probably would've won most other years, it had the misfortune of going up against a well-made film about one of the most iconic and revered human beings ever.