the premise that started this thread was that Michael Moore makes a shit ton of money lambasting people who make A SHIT TON OF MONEY.
then you started in saying that he spends his own money and that he LOSES money on his films.
all i'm saying is that you're wrong. and you are. come on the guys is worth over $50 million. he makes sure that when he signs his contracts with the film companies that me makes damn sure that he makes millions when all is said and done.
if his film loses money he doesn't lose money. he still gets paid. come on.
and i did post a article from a ridiculous rag in my haste to prove you wrong. oops. i actually just read the whole thing. wow. yeah i'm stupid.
but even a stupid guy like me knows i'm right about this.
Wrong again, as usual
The false premise that started this thread was that Moore is a hypocrite because he owns 9 homes.
As I said in my first post on this thread that Just because he criticizes the criminality of Wall Street and has issues with income inequality, wealth disparity, etc. doesn't make him "anti-capitalist"
I also pointed out that you and everyone else actually has to pay money to see one of his movies and then merely pointed out that his Capitalism movie actually lost money so he failed at that capitalist experiment
Then Coach jumped in and claimed that the Moore still made a lot of money on the film. Of course I never said that Moore didn't receive a salary (though who really knows) and Coach was never able to prove that Moore made "lots of money or any money on this film and that's where you decided to go off on a tangent
Then you jumped in with the idiotic claim that Moore does not share in the financial success of his films
or as you put it
I guarantee you..........GUARANTEE you that Michael Moore's compensation was not based upon the net income of the venture.
then I showed you examples of where he did in fact receive compensation based on the net income of his venture (which is common practice in that industry). Remember the deal for Sicko actually mentioned "profits" and Fahrenheit 911 mentioned net revenues which was described as 50% of ticket sales less marketing, production and distribution expenses which I pointed either means that they have a different definition of net revenue in that industry or the author just used the wrong term because clearly he received a compensation based on net revenue (i.e 50% of ticket sales) less expenses.
All the time I kept pointing out that this little side battle you chose to start was not only false but had nothing to do with Bum's other false premise on which he started this thread