Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
July 30, 2014, 08:36:00 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home Help Calendar Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 999
51  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on: July 25, 2014, 08:04:22 PM
The Daily Currant is a satirical news website.

LOL
52  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: Two Old Farts talk about the Good Old Days on: July 25, 2014, 03:22:31 PM
And just like on the poli board. You change the subject.

and just like any board you post on you're a certified moron

my post was a direct reply to your post

if you don't like it then you should stay on topic next time
53  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on: July 25, 2014, 02:52:49 PM
straw i'm an accountant. what you are saying is absolutely wrong.  you can futz around with your wording and fool a bunch of drunk college kids but not a practicing CPA.  SALES RETURNS AND ALLOWANCES are NOT the amounts they pay to the theaters.   and the author of the article has it wrong as well, which is why you made the mistake.  Net Revenues is NEVER defined as sales less commissions, or anything else.  it is always defined as exactly how YOU defined it.  sales less returns and allowances.

your problem is that you are relying on the accounting knowledge of some author who doesn't know the first thing about accounting.  I also know enough to know that people like Michael Moore don't get into deals to make movies unless they KNOW that they will be compensated well.  Maybe at the beginning of their career they use some of their own money and take risks.  but at the point he made this movie it's nothing less than silly to think he wasn't in a deal to make a shit load of GUARANTEED MONEY.

the bottom line is this guy makes tons of money by convincing college kids who know nothing about the world that they are owed something they don't have to earn.  and it works.



Like I previously wrote, it's pretty clear that "net revenue" has another meaning in the movie biz since it appears to  come after a bunch of expenses are deducted, including the cost of production.  Either that or the author used the wrong term because he explicitly detailed how Moore's 27% was calculated and it wasn't calculated on the 130 million that was left over after the theater owners took their share but on the 80 million left after "expenses" were deducted 

the bottom line is that Moore absolutely makes income from the profits of the film or the "net income of the venture" as you put it.

If you want to debate semantics that is fine but that is still the bottom line

Again, completely contrary to you guarantee to me that "Michael Moore's compensation was not based upon the net income of the venture."

again, completely irrelevant to to the false premise that started this thread
54  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: Two Old Farts talk about the Good Old Days on: July 24, 2014, 03:46:55 PM
You need to stick to posting about stuff like this. On that note. I knew Eddie when I trained with Doug Brignole. he was Joe Golds right hand man when Joe had Worlds Gym in Santa Monica. He was awesome with some great stories. That was a great interview.

You should stick to not posting at all.

how many times have you melted down and said you were leaving and then changed your name

I recall Joe Loco, Mr Intense One and I think you had one or two more or maybe I'm confusing your number of former user names with the number of your ex wives
55  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on: July 24, 2014, 03:44:32 PM
i'm confused.  your quote says that he is paid based upon the net revenues of the film.  and that's what i'm saying.  

he gets paid before taking into account any expenses.  he gets paid on the net revenues that the film generates.  PERIOD.  that means that he is paid a certain percentage of revenues no matter what the other expenses are.  if the movie grosses 100 million at the box office, he gets 27 million dollars.  the movie could lose $50 million.........and he'd still get $27 million.  and yes he ALSO gets a piece of the net income.....AFTER HE GETS HIS CUT OF THE GROSS REVENUES.  but make no mistake he made sure he got his 27% of the gross revenues FIRST.  then if the venture's statement of profit and loss is in the black he gets a cut of that too.

you do know what net revenues means right?  Oh God you don't.  please.........just..... ....stop.


the quote regarding Moore's take on various films mentions his compensation is based on "net revenue" and "profits"

For most types of business net revenue is Revenue less sales returns and allowances.

Clearly it has a different meaning in this industry because Box Office Receipt less 50% to the theaters left 130 million in what should be "net revenue" but then they deducted  the expenses of "marketing, production, and distribution" before arriving at "net revenue".   Production likely includes the cost to make the film.  So Net revenue sounds a lot more like "net income" or "profits" than it does "net revenue"

Quote
With Fahrenheit, after the theaters took their standard 50% cut of box office receipts, roughly $130 million in revenue was left over. When you take away marketing, production and distribution expenses, Miramax and Moore were left with an estimated $80 million payday. Moore's 27% cut on this film alone would eventually work out to roughly $21.6 million. He was actually entitled to 50% of the profits of Sicko which reportedly generated an additional $17 million payday for Michael. Moore is the author of eight books to date, several of which have gone on to be New York Time best sellers. Michael received a reported $1 million advance for "Dude Where's My Country" plus a generous percentage of the book sales

Further on in the same quote it said he was entitled to "50% of the profits" of Sicko"

So in both cases his income is directly tied to the financial success of the film whether is net revenue (calculated after a bunch of expenses are deducted) or "profits"

Either way it shows your guarantee to me that Michael Moore's compensation was not based upon the net income of the venture is complete bullshit.  Even if you want to argue that net revenue doesn't "walk and talk" like net income you can't argue that regarding Sicko which explicitly says "profits"

Once again this has nothing to do with the false premise that started this thread





56  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: Two Old Farts talk about the Good Old Days on: July 23, 2014, 09:08:02 PM
.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlLtyDVD0Gg" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlLtyDVD0Gg</a>
57  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on: July 23, 2014, 07:51:16 PM
Yeah Dummy, I'm quite sure he's going to make his budgets known to the public. This discussion has direct correlation to this topic.

correct, so you have no clue what his deal was or whether he even took a salary

again, keep in mind this sidetrack of yours has nothing to do with the Bums false premise that started this thread

whether he took a salary or not is irrelevant because I assume he WANTED to make a profit on this film just like anyone else

58  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on: July 23, 2014, 06:44:54 PM
Read this again, carefully..

Are you business inept? He didn't spend shit, no one seeking approval for INVESTORS uses their own money to fund a movie...lol. Are you shitting me? Every movie made is business risk because IT'S A BUSINESS. I'm sure his negotiations included his salary (like most ventures) plus a percentage of the movie proceeds. If there is no profit from the movie, he makes nothing FROM THE MOVIE. Understand?  

"If there is no profit made from the movie, he makes NOTHING FROM THE MOVIE"

You have a degree in finance (yet you can't figure out that raising taxes kills business, but I digress) in some part of that you have to had covered business finance (Business loans, venture capitol, private investors, etc) if you did, you should know when putting a business plan together to present to a lender, investor or whatever, you include salaries. This includes his own.

pay attention Dopey

I never claimed that he used solely his own money or any of his own money.  I merely said he may well have done so

What I did say is that the movie lost money

Now if you have some details of the budget and his salary (IF ANY) or proof that he had none of his own money invested in this film then provide it or or STFU

We're not even discussing the topic of this thread

Again, we're discussing your unproven claim that Moore personally made money on this film/invested none of his own money.... which I will point out again is something I never said in the first place

I said the film made no money and now I've spent more time trying to help you pull your head out of your ass based on your apparent misunderstanding of what I wrote (or maybe it's just your profound stupidity)
59  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on: July 23, 2014, 03:57:46 PM
seriously can't believe that you're plowing ahead with this idiocy. 

This is you and Dopey Coach's premise

remember

I'm the one who said Moores film lost money and I'm sure that wasn't his intention

you're the one who "guaranteed" me that  "Michael Moore's compensation was not based upon the net income of the venture." and that I would have to be an "idiot to believe that"

So you believe that the guy who directed, produced and wrote the film had received no compensation based on the "net income of the venture" as you put it

Kind of odd given that is exactly how he made money on many of his prior films and exactly how most producer/directors and even actors make money on a film

Seriously man, this belief of  yours  ...which you wrote "I guarantee you..........GUARANTEE"
is one of the dumbest comments I've even seen on this board (and that's saying something)

For some proof of the stupidity of your claim let's review exactly how Moore was "compensated" on some of his other films

Do you see his "compensation was not based upon the net income of the venture".... as you wrote

Quote
Moore's three biggest movies, "Bowling For Columbine", "Fahrenheit 911″ and "Capitalism A Love Story" have earned over $300 million at the box office to date. Fahrenheit 911 set the record for highest grossing documentary of all time when it earned $230 million in theaters worldwide. Fahrenheit eventually earned an additional $3 million from DVD sales. How much of that money goes into Michael Moore's pockets? Prior to the release of Fahrenheit 911, Michael signed a deal with movie distributor which would entitle him to 27% of his film's net revenues.

With Fahrenheit, after the theaters took their standard 50% cut of box office receipts, roughly $130 million in revenue was left over. When you take away marketing, production and distribution expenses, Miramax and Moore were left with an estimated $80 million payday. Moore's 27% cut on this film alone would eventually work out to roughly $21.6 million. He was actually entitled to 50% of the profits of Sicko which reportedly generated an additional $17 million payday for Michael. Moore is the author of eight books to date, several of which have gone on to be New York Time best sellers. Michael received a reported $1 million advance for "Dude Where's My Country" plus a generous percentage of the book sales
.
60  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on: July 23, 2014, 03:44:42 PM
this post is so full of stupid I don't even know where to start.
 you really need to go to college.

I guarantee you..........GUARANTEE you that Michael Moore's compensation was not based upon the net income of the venture.  you would have to be a fucking idiot to believe that.  Michael Moore's compensation was an expense of the venture to arrive at net income.  do you know anything about accounting?  you're really unfucking believable.  the guy is worth $50 million and you think he would make a deal like that?  

and just so we're clear.  do you believe that Michael Moore made this movie and made ZERO money?  better yet, do you believe he paid money out of his own pocket to make this movie that grossed over $14 million dollars?  

jesus fucking H Christ someone please just fucking shoot me!

spare me guarantees and show me some proof of any of your claims

keep in mind my original statement was that the film lost money and that is a fact

please go research how movie profits get disbursed (I provided some info for you on this thread)

do you know how many people make profitable movies still wind up screwing their investors

Again, also try to keep in mind the topic of this thread is the false narrative that Moore is somehow anti-capitalist and shouldn't own real estate.    

Typical Get Big Thread - we start with a false premise an then a confederacy of dunces can't even keep track of the original topic and confuse themselves with another off topic false premise of their own making

BTW - I have to say that you belief that Moore compensation on this film (or any of his films) was not in some way based on the "net income of the venture" is fucking HILARIOUS
61  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on: July 23, 2014, 03:38:35 PM
Holy shit, really? He has a worth of $50mil and the movie cost $20mil. You really think he's going to risk his own money. Btw, pretty sure that isn't $50mil liquid. Straw, here's a thought. Go to your local juco and enroll in business 101. Start there. If you don't know anything about business you shouldn't speak about capitalism. Fuck!

I actually have a degree in finance and work in the field (not that it's needed for this conversation given that you're a glorified gym teacher)

scroll back to the top of this page and you'll see this quote from me

I'm well aware that people invest in movies

he may or may not have had investors but that doesn't mean the movie didn't lose money

also, since he and his wife produced it and it's a condemnation of the abuses of capitalism I suspect it was self financed (he certainly could afford the 20 million budget himself)

If you have some actual proof that he made money on this film then post it

Are you aware the Francis Ford Coppola mortgaged his properties to make The God Father and that he financed Apocalypse Now himself because no studio would touch it.   I'm sure you remember that Sado Masochistic snuff film, The Passion of the Christ.  Mel Gibson famously financed that via his production company. 

So yes, people put money into their own films.  It happens all the time.

And like I've pointed out three times now, the film lost money and I'm sure that was not Moores intention.

62  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on: July 23, 2014, 12:15:02 PM
LOL!  are you sitting here telling me that you believe that Michael Moore actually paid out of his own pocket to have that movie made?  AND HE PAID OUT MORE THAN HE MADE?

you're a fucking idiot. 

Feel free to show me that he didn't have an investment in the movie

BTW - stop the hysterics.   The movie itself LOST MONEY.  You seem to be unaware that happens sometimes (quite often actually)

You're aware that the movie theatres get a cut of the ticket sales (apparently 50% is standard) and then you take away marketing, production and distribution expenses and then Moore would have a % of the what is left (depending on whatever the agreement was with the distributor).   Now if that # is negative that what does he make?

Again, try to keep in mind (I know this is asking a lot of you) that I have said from the beginning of this thread that the guy is not "anti-capitalist" and I'm sure his goal with movies is ALWAYS to make money
63  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on: July 23, 2014, 11:25:17 AM
Thats completely besides the point retard...the point is is that he HAS become wealthy off his movies- through pure capitalism. The fact that he made a movie disparaging capitalism and the wealthy is the height of irony

lack of reading comprehension much?

Go back to my first post on this thread

How is Moore "anti-capitalist"

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'm pretty sure you have to pay to see his movies

Just more bullshit from the right wing echo chamber

The question I have is do they know this meme is bullshit or are they really this stupid?
64  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Hillary was a doper and a choomer too on: July 23, 2014, 11:23:49 AM
Joe is just a devote christian and he knows that Jesus and his Dad would never approve of a woman in any position of authority over man.

I know, it's seem fucking crazy but it's the "word of god" so what are you gonna do ?



65  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on: July 23, 2014, 11:04:34 AM
Are you business inept? He didn't spend shit, no one seeking approval for INVESTORS uses their own money to fund a movie...lol. Are you shitting me? Every movie made is business risk because IT'S A BUSINESS. I'm sure his negotiations included his salary (like most ventures) plus a percentage of the movie proceeds. If there is no profit from the movie, he makes nothing FROM THE MOVIE. Understand?  

I'm well aware that people invest in movies

he may or may not have had investors but that doesn't mean the movie didn't lose money

also, since he and his wife produced it and it's a condemnation of the abuses of capitalism I suspect it was self financed (he certainly could afford the 20 million budget himself)

If you have some actual proof that he made money on this film then post it
66  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on: July 23, 2014, 11:00:08 AM
He engages in the very behavior he rails against. 

that makes no sense based on that video you posted or anything in that the adults here are talking about

67  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on: July 23, 2014, 10:50:53 AM
Moore didn't lose anything. The movie might have lost but he still made his money...a lot of money.

You are truly a dunce aren't you?

He spent 20 million and made about 17.5 million in revenue

Have one of your 8th graders do the math for you
68  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on: July 23, 2014, 10:49:28 AM
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdNOI1ObQpk" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdNOI1ObQpk</a>

did you even watch that before you posted it

he talks about raising taxes and bringing jobs back to America

wow - shocking

We've never heard anyone say that before

Dude - just go back to posting about how Obama is gay and stay out of the way of people trying to discuss/debate a topic
69  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on: July 23, 2014, 10:46:00 AM
The entire concept

if so (and I don't agree) then what was he advocating as an alternative

did he suggest that the state should own everything or did he suggest we go back to a feudal system or something else.

or was he just pointing out some of the flaws and abuses in our current form of capitalism?

Why is it that right wingers tend to see everything as black or white (yes, left wingers are prone to this too so maybe I should just say right/left ideologues)?
70  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on: July 23, 2014, 10:17:55 AM
um yeah he made a movie showing how bad capitalism is.  and thousands of people went to see it and he made millions of dollars off of it. 

its called "fleecing the sheep".  and I think its hilarious. 

he actually lost money

I assume you're aware of the difference between revenue and profit

If you aren't aware of some of the abuses of our current form of capitalism then you're most definitely part of the herd that is being fleeced
71  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on: July 23, 2014, 10:14:45 AM
His movie Capitalism: a love story, while it does have some funny/good parts, is clearly anti capitalist especially towards the end...it absolutely derides capitalism as a concept.

Surely you can see the hilarious irony in the guy who has made tons of wealth in a capitalist system...by bashing the wealthy and the capitalist system.

I assume you purchased a ticket to that movie (or in some way or another paid to see it)

Wasn't it mostly about the financial crisis, and the various abuses of our current form of capitalism?

I can't recall but did he speak out against the ownership of private property in that movie (I honestly can't recall which is why I am asking).  

BTW - according to this site (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=michaelmoore09.htm) the film cost 20 million to make and only grossed ~ 17.5 million worldwide so he definitely failed at that capitalist experiment (and I'm sure he would have preferred to have made a profit).  Granted I'm sure a large part of that 20 million in expenses was Moore's catering bill.  

72  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on: July 23, 2014, 09:33:29 AM
How is Moore "anti-capitalist"

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'm pretty sure you have to pay to see his movies

Just more bullshit from the right wing echo chamber

The question I have is do they know this meme is bullshit or are they really this stupid?
73  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: Two Old Farts talk about the Good Old Days on: July 23, 2014, 09:22:41 AM
I see when and a lot of the older bodybuilders usually at Muscle Beach.

Very cool and respectful...



Ed seems like a cool old Italian guy and still busting Drasin's balls which is funny
74  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Two Old Farts talk about the Good Old Days on: July 22, 2014, 09:45:38 PM
Ron, you should have someone interview Ed

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDLpR-uqQwc" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDLpR-uqQwc</a>
75  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Romney v Obama debate - LMFAO x 1,000,000 how wrong O-twink was on: July 22, 2014, 08:08:31 PM
Right?  But I think Lurker and the Village Idiot stalk him so much it's like have six groupies.  lol   Smiley

you are his groupie

unless you're just making up your own definition of the word groupie

You, of course, are my bitch

It would be nice if you and the other mods would actually do your job and stop this mental patient from ruining this board so that we could actually have a political debate

you know.....just follow your own rules
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 999
Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!