Half hour episodes of even situation comedies run a quarter million. Hour episodes of action shows run up to $1.5 million.
they only make money (hopefully) when they are in re-run, and have been on for at least three years with original episodes.
Yes all of that is true.
Quote:
The only restructuring you are going to see is more programs being brought inhouse. That cuts costs by about 25%.
There is plenty of room to rein in unnecessary costs and inefficient spending.
Studios signing actors, producers, and production companies exorbitantly and unnecessarily expensive productions deals. These costs are now being reined in. Such as Paramount cutting Tom Cruise from his multimillion dollar production deal.
Paying actors 20 million per movie or multimillions per television season. There is no real reason for this outside of hubris and ego.
Productions being unnecessarily burdened with too many producers. These are mostly people who are trying to grab a piece of the pie. Some TV shows list as many as 15 producers. These are obvious cost over runs and inefficiency.
Quote:
They are talking of cutting it loose again.
You may be right but I haven't seen anything about that. Why would they continue to expand Technicolor's service.
Quote:
That's not a universally agreed upon opinion. Gamers who have consoles may play, and buy, more games. But it isn't agreed that there are more of them, or that they are completely seperate from PC gamers.
The cold numbers tell the truth. Look at hardware sales. PC gaming hardware sells hundreds of thousands of machines annually. Console gaming hardware sells over a hundred million machines annually.
There is plenty of room to rein in unnecessary costs and inefficient spending.
Studios signing actors, producers, and production companies exorbitantly and unnecessarily expensive productions deals. These costs are now being reined in. Such as Paramount cutting Tom Cruise from his multimillion dollar production deal.
Paying actors 20 million per movie or multimillions per television season. There is no real reason for this outside of hubris and ego.
Productions being unnecessarily burdened with too many producers. These are mostly people who are trying to grab a piece of the pie. Some TV shows list as many as 15 producers. These are obvious cost over runs and inefficiency.
Some of what you are saying is true. But not all of it.
The costs that bringing production into house will cut back on some of those problems you mentioned. But some are simply part of the production process that can't be eliminated.
Firing Tom Cruise had little to do with his salary per picture per se. it had much more to do with the foolish public antics he's been having. Polls had shown that people were tired of him because of that, and therefore his value to the studio was dropping.
Quote:
You may be right but I haven't seen anything about that. Why would they continue to expand Technicolor's service.
Shrinking the services they offer is just the beginning of saying that the company is dying.
They expand services in the hope that is will gain business and turn the company around.
Quote:
The cold numbers tell the truth. Look at hardware sales. PC gaming hardware sells hundreds of thousands of machines annually. Console gaming hardware sells over a hundred million machines annually.
That's not the truth. That's only a small part of it.
Do you think the only ones playing games on PCs are the ones buying from Alien and VooDoo?
The numbers are more like this:
Gaming consoles (not including portables, that's different) don't sell 100 million a year. Sony broke the 100 million sales number for the PS2 in late 2005. That was the cumulative number. Sales of consoles per year are about half of that, 50 million a year, perhaps a bit more, or perhaps not.
But more than 220 million computers were sold last year as well.
Those who play games on computers are not as committed as much in the aggragate, but there are a lot of them.
One thing that can be seen, in some of these articles, as well as others, is that it's the handheld, portable consoles like the DS that are growing, while the home console market is shrinking.
It's felt that portables are cutting into sales. The high price of the new machines will limit sales, and the newly enervated PC gaming market is also cutting into sales.
The costs that bringing production into house will cut back on some of those problems you mentioned. But some are simply part of the production process that can't be eliminated.
Hollywood is worse than Washington with cronyism. A television show with 15 producers, everyone knows most of those are vanity and political titles. Giving a friend a producer tile, repaying someone for past a favor, lobbying someone for a favor in the future. These behind the scenes politics generally have little or nothing to do with producing this one television show.
There is no reason why studios have to pay actors ungodly amounts of money. All they need to do is say no. Which they have begun to do.
Quote:
Firing Tom Cruise had little to do with his salary per picture per se. it had much more to do with the foolish public antics he's been having. Polls had shown that people were tired of him because of that, and therefore his value to the studio was dropping.
Entertainers are always involved with foolish antics: drugs scandals, prostitution scandals, murder scandals. They generally weather almost any scandal with little damage to their career. I think Tom Cruise's offense was quite a bit less dramatic than any of that.
It was reported in Variety that Paramount and Cruise had already decided to absolve their relationship. Paramount wanted to decrease their obligation to his production company while Tom wanted to increase it. They could not agree on a final deal and decided to go their separate ways.
Paramount officials were surprised when Viacom chief Sumner Redstone announced that they were firing Tom Cruise because of his devotion to scientology. Paramount told Variety that the split was over money and not his religious beliefs.
It's felt that portables are cutting into sales. The high price of the new machines will limit sales, and the newly enervated PC gaming market is also cutting into sales.
This is over a time with out the Playstation 3 available. The Playstation market has become saturated and slowing sales. But it still out sells the XBOX 360.
We shall see what happens in the near future when the PS 3 is available with HD games and MS has to compete directly with it.
Hollywood is worse than Washington with cronyism. A television show with 15 producers, everyone knows most of those are vanity and political titles. Giving a friend a producer tile, repaying someone for past a favor, lobbying someone for a favor in the future. These behind the scenes politics generally have little or nothing to do with producing this one television show.
Some is cronyism. So take off 1% of the costs for that.
When I was shooting Tv commercials in the early '70's, I had a sound man who did the work, and another who waited around for the first one to drop dead. Other areas have the same problem. Take off another 5%.
Those were (and still are) union rules.
Many shows have several producers. They are called segment producers, because that's the way some shows are done. 60 Minutes is a good example of that. Each story has it's own producer. it must be that way. News programs must be done that way as well. Other programs, have producers for action segments, home segments, etc. It's done that way because there isn't much time to shoot a weekly show. This way they can break the show into several mutually exclusive parts, and shoot them at the same time. Therefore, sometimes they have more than one director as well. They are called "unit" directors. Even movies are done that way. They have producers and directors to take shots of inter-scene background, etc.
Your 15 producers is a bit on the high side though. What show did you see that had so many?
Quote:
There is no reason why studios have to pay actors ungodly amounts of money. All they need to do is say no. Which they have begun to do.
Sure they do. It's called supply and demand. When new shows with unknown actors become popular, and both viewer-ship and ad revenue go up, prices go up as well. Actors demand higher wages.
Look to sports. Do you really think that those people are worth multiple millions for several months of playing games?
Quote:
Entertainers are always involved with foolish antics: drugs scandals, prostitution scandals, murder scandals. They generally weather almost any scandal with little damage to their career. I think Tom Cruise's offense was quite a bit less dramatic than any of that.
People love those sexual antics, and other bits of trouble the star they hate to love, and love to hate get into. There is an entire industry built up around this gossip.
But, Cruise went over the top. He was espousing his religious beliefs while making cruel fun of those others have.
We don't tolerate that here in a public forum. What he may say in private is his business, but not in public. People are upset with that. It was over the top.
Quote:
It was reported in Variety that Paramount and Cruise had already decided to absolve their relationship. Paramount wanted to decrease their obligation to his production company while Tom wanted to increase it. They could not agree on a final deal and decided to go their separate ways.
That was just part of it. If they had felt that his value hadn't been diluted, they would have worked it out.
Quote:
Paramount officials were surprised when Viacom chief Sumner Redstone announced that they were firing Tom Cruise because of his devotion to scientology. Paramount told Variety that the split was over money and not his religious beliefs.
Paramount is spinning. It wasn't over his religious beliefs. More than a few in the entertainment industry believe in Scientology. They aren't the subject of controversy. He is.
Money comes into it when it's felt that his star value isn't what is once was. in the hinterland of the country where religious conservatives reign, his spouting will lessen the sales of the product.
Even the religious right in this country, for the most part, have no problem with people's odd religions. But when those people make fun of theirs, they become very unhappy. Cruise certainly alienated me, and I'm anything but religious. Think of how that other part of America feels about him.
So, yes, it's money. But, not really for the reasons they gave.
This is over a time with out the Playstation 3 available. The Playstation market has become saturated and slowing sales. But it still out sells the XBOX 360.
We shall see what happens in the near future when the PS 3 is available with HD games and MS has to compete directly with it.
This is over the past two years. No one thinks that either the 360 or the PS3 will gain the number of yearly sales their older brothers did. The Wii will do well, but likely not much better than before.
I have a friend that's considering getting a PS 3 over a PC. That's quite a change for a PC centric like him.
Personally, I'm trying to convince him to shell out his peas on an 8-core Mac when they arrive. He'd be more creative and can still buy his 'PC games'...
But the PS3 visuals look pretty good to me... The trailers do look amazing. I hope it does well. Just because of M$ making 360 and all.
Some is cronyism. So take off 1% of the costs for that.
Producers collectively as a bunch are taking far more than 1% of a productions budget. Are you familiar with above the line and bellow the line salary?
Quote:
Your 15 producers is a bit on the high side though. What show did you see that had so many?
For CSI Crime Scene Investigators IMDB lists 50 people who have been credited as some type of producer. 18 were credited for a temporary time, which leaves one to assume 32 are on staff.
Quote:
Actors demand higher wages.
They can demand it but it doesn't mean it has to be given to them. On a typically budgeted $80 million dollar movie you have one or two actors taking a third of the budget.
But all of that is being scaled back.
Quote:
Look to sports. Do you really think that those people are worth multiple millions for several months of playing games?
None of them are getting paid $20 million a game. The total amount of their contract extends over years. Generally when a player is traded to a new team, the new team picks up the same contract that player had with his old team. Pretty much all major sports leagues except baseball have a salary cap.
Players make far more money from commercial endorsement deals than they make from their team.
Quote:
Money comes into it when it's felt that his star value isn't what is once was. in the hinterland of the country where religious conservatives reign, his spouting will lessen the sales of the product.
The money wasn't direct salary to Tom Cruise. It was money paying the over head of his production company. Tom Cruise being ridiculously rich Paramount was less interested in paying the overhead for his production company because Viacom is telling them to reduce costs. The same has happened with other studios and actors who have not gone on rants about scientology. Notably Jim Carey has also been released from his production deal with 20th Century Fox I believe it was.
Producers collectively as a bunch are taking far more than 1% of a productions budget. Are you familiar with above the line and bellow the line salary?
Yes, I am. But they still don't get as much as you think they do. I'll get to that in the next paragraph.
Quote:
For CSI Crime Scene Investigators IMDB lists 50 people who have been credited as some type of producer. 18 were credited for a temporary time, which leaves one to assume 32 are on staff.
Many times a "producer" is a production assistant. Not a real producer. That takes care of many of the names rolling down. Many of these "producers" are spending their time running out for coffee.
Quote:
They can demand it but it doesn't mean it has to be given to them. On a typically budgeted $80 million dollar movie you have one or two actors taking a third of the budget.
They get it if they are popular enough. Like ARod from the Yankees. He gets $26.5 million a year. Is he worth it? Not to me. But he brings fans to the stadium, and they want to see him on Tv.
Quote:
But all of that is being scaled back.
I've heard that all before. But it always seems to go higher. One station several years ago said that action adventures were too expensive, so they were cutting back on them. Their ratings plummeted, and they changed their minds.
Quote:
None of them are getting paid $20 million a game. The total amount of their contract extends over years. Generally when a player is traded to a new team, the new team picks up the same contract that player had with his old team. Pretty much all major sports leagues except baseball have a salary cap.
You have to look at income. No game makes $100 to $500 million. Each big movie might. And with DVD sales and toys and whatever other junk people will buy, they can easily double that.
Quote:
Players make far more money from commercial endorsement deals than they make from their team.
A handful do. The rest do mostly local ads where they don't make much.
Quote:
The money wasn't direct salary to Tom Cruise. It was money paying the over head of his production company. Tom Cruise being ridiculously rich Paramount was less interested in paying the overhead for his production company because Viacom is telling them to reduce costs. The same has happened with other studios and actors who have not gone on rants about scientology. Notably Jim Carey has also been released from his production deal with 20th Century Fox I believe it was.
a lot of stars have that these days. They get part of the profits, but don't share in the losses. They have their own production companies, etc. If they are worth it, nobody cares.
Carey changed agents, and left that contract because he wasn't happy.
I think Apple maybe dropping a hint that what they have available now is it and don't expect anything new or different. Look at the new layout of the Mac Pro configuration page on the Apple store! Select the Compare Specs tab and you will see "Which Mac are you?" with the 24" iMac and then the base config and beside that the suggestions for upgrades.
I'm afraid Apple are sticking to the current line up and telling us dreamers where to stick it in terms of a regular Conroe tower. Also I just read on The Register that some the quad core chips are power hungry beasts.
Otellini suggests that next year there will be 50 — 80 watt quads so I wouldn't be surprised if Apple waits till then to shuffle the MAc Pro line up. MAybe they might put a regular Kentsfield in so we could use regular RAM. They might do a top end dual quad at the top end for the moment for those begging for it but I think their position is clear, if you look at the "Compare" page with iMac 24 at c$2000 and the Mac Pro at c¢2500. I don't think they will drop prices on the Mac Pro with any silent upgrade. They probably factored that into the original price at intro hence cheaper than a Dell.
Yeah we've gone way off topic. Obviously we are both stubborn. But I have to address one last thing.
Quote:
Many times a "producer" is a production assistant.
In broadcast television the title producer means something a bit different than movies and filmed television.
In movies and filmed television a PA is pretty much the worst job you can have and the complete polar opposite of a producer. They don't get any official credit to the project and certainly don't get credit as a producer.
A friend of mine Paul Lindsay is currently a PA on the television show Las Vegas, see his name in there with the producers?
So back on topic...which of the various OS's (Linux, Windows, OSX, Solaris) is best for a 8 core Mac Pro? Just from the perspective of SMP support...
I think that OS X might be last place simply because it would be the newest platform to the 8-way mix, with no official support or even official systems for it yet. The rest have supported 8-way for quite some time now, Sun was probably first but maybe Windows and Linux have probably mostly caught up. This is must my vaguely educated opinion.
Yeah we've gone way off topic. Obviously we are both stubborn. But I have to address one last thing.
In broadcast television the title producer means something a bit different than movies and filmed television.
In movies and filmed television a PA is pretty much the worst job you can have and the complete polar opposite of a producer. They don't get any official credit to the project and certainly don't get credit as a producer.
A friend of mine Paul Lindsay is currently a PA on the television show Las Vegas, see his name in there with the producers?
Comments
Half hour episodes of even situation comedies run a quarter million. Hour episodes of action shows run up to $1.5 million.
they only make money (hopefully) when they are in re-run, and have been on for at least three years with original episodes.
Yes all of that is true.
The only restructuring you are going to see is more programs being brought inhouse. That cuts costs by about 25%.
There is plenty of room to rein in unnecessary costs and inefficient spending.
Studios signing actors, producers, and production companies exorbitantly and unnecessarily expensive productions deals. These costs are now being reined in. Such as Paramount cutting Tom Cruise from his multimillion dollar production deal.
Paying actors 20 million per movie or multimillions per television season. There is no real reason for this outside of hubris and ego.
Productions being unnecessarily burdened with too many producers. These are mostly people who are trying to grab a piece of the pie. Some TV shows list as many as 15 producers. These are obvious cost over runs and inefficiency.
They are talking of cutting it loose again.
You may be right but I haven't seen anything about that. Why would they continue to expand Technicolor's service.
That's not a universally agreed upon opinion. Gamers who have consoles may play, and buy, more games. But it isn't agreed that there are more of them, or that they are completely seperate from PC gamers.
The cold numbers tell the truth. Look at hardware sales. PC gaming hardware sells hundreds of thousands of machines annually. Console gaming hardware sells over a hundred million machines annually.
Yes all of that is true.
There is plenty of room to rein in unnecessary costs and inefficient spending.
Studios signing actors, producers, and production companies exorbitantly and unnecessarily expensive productions deals. These costs are now being reined in. Such as Paramount cutting Tom Cruise from his multimillion dollar production deal.
Paying actors 20 million per movie or multimillions per television season. There is no real reason for this outside of hubris and ego.
Productions being unnecessarily burdened with too many producers. These are mostly people who are trying to grab a piece of the pie. Some TV shows list as many as 15 producers. These are obvious cost over runs and inefficiency.
Some of what you are saying is true. But not all of it.
The costs that bringing production into house will cut back on some of those problems you mentioned. But some are simply part of the production process that can't be eliminated.
Firing Tom Cruise had little to do with his salary per picture per se. it had much more to do with the foolish public antics he's been having. Polls had shown that people were tired of him because of that, and therefore his value to the studio was dropping.
You may be right but I haven't seen anything about that. Why would they continue to expand Technicolor's service.
Shrinking the services they offer is just the beginning of saying that the company is dying.
They expand services in the hope that is will gain business and turn the company around.
The cold numbers tell the truth. Look at hardware sales. PC gaming hardware sells hundreds of thousands of machines annually. Console gaming hardware sells over a hundred million machines annually.
That's not the truth. That's only a small part of it.
Do you think the only ones playing games on PCs are the ones buying from Alien and VooDoo?
The numbers are more like this:
Gaming consoles (not including portables, that's different) don't sell 100 million a year. Sony broke the 100 million sales number for the PS2 in late 2005. That was the cumulative number. Sales of consoles per year are about half of that, 50 million a year, perhaps a bit more, or perhaps not.
But more than 220 million computers were sold last year as well.
Those who play games on computers are not as committed as much in the aggragate, but there are a lot of them.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060115-5983.html
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060315-6390.html
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060822-7556.html
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061025-8074.html
There's quite a bit more.
One thing that can be seen, in some of these articles, as well as others, is that it's the handheld, portable consoles like the DS that are growing, while the home console market is shrinking.
It's felt that portables are cutting into sales. The high price of the new machines will limit sales, and the newly enervated PC gaming market is also cutting into sales.
The costs that bringing production into house will cut back on some of those problems you mentioned. But some are simply part of the production process that can't be eliminated.
Hollywood is worse than Washington with cronyism. A television show with 15 producers, everyone knows most of those are vanity and political titles. Giving a friend a producer tile, repaying someone for past a favor, lobbying someone for a favor in the future. These behind the scenes politics generally have little or nothing to do with producing this one television show.
There is no reason why studios have to pay actors ungodly amounts of money. All they need to do is say no. Which they have begun to do.
Firing Tom Cruise had little to do with his salary per picture per se. it had much more to do with the foolish public antics he's been having. Polls had shown that people were tired of him because of that, and therefore his value to the studio was dropping.
Entertainers are always involved with foolish antics: drugs scandals, prostitution scandals, murder scandals. They generally weather almost any scandal with little damage to their career. I think Tom Cruise's offense was quite a bit less dramatic than any of that.
It was reported in Variety that Paramount and Cruise had already decided to absolve their relationship. Paramount wanted to decrease their obligation to his production company while Tom wanted to increase it. They could not agree on a final deal and decided to go their separate ways.
Paramount officials were surprised when Viacom chief Sumner Redstone announced that they were firing Tom Cruise because of his devotion to scientology. Paramount told Variety that the split was over money and not his religious beliefs.
It's felt that portables are cutting into sales. The high price of the new machines will limit sales, and the newly enervated PC gaming market is also cutting into sales.
This is over a time with out the Playstation 3 available. The Playstation market has become saturated and slowing sales. But it still out sells the XBOX 360.
We shall see what happens in the near future when the PS 3 is available with HD games and MS has to compete directly with it.
Hollywood is worse than Washington with cronyism. A television show with 15 producers, everyone knows most of those are vanity and political titles. Giving a friend a producer tile, repaying someone for past a favor, lobbying someone for a favor in the future. These behind the scenes politics generally have little or nothing to do with producing this one television show.
Some is cronyism. So take off 1% of the costs for that.
When I was shooting Tv commercials in the early '70's, I had a sound man who did the work, and another who waited around for the first one to drop dead. Other areas have the same problem. Take off another 5%.
Those were (and still are) union rules.
Many shows have several producers. They are called segment producers, because that's the way some shows are done. 60 Minutes is a good example of that. Each story has it's own producer. it must be that way. News programs must be done that way as well. Other programs, have producers for action segments, home segments, etc. It's done that way because there isn't much time to shoot a weekly show. This way they can break the show into several mutually exclusive parts, and shoot them at the same time. Therefore, sometimes they have more than one director as well. They are called "unit" directors. Even movies are done that way. They have producers and directors to take shots of inter-scene background, etc.
Your 15 producers is a bit on the high side though. What show did you see that had so many?
There is no reason why studios have to pay actors ungodly amounts of money. All they need to do is say no. Which they have begun to do.
Sure they do. It's called supply and demand. When new shows with unknown actors become popular, and both viewer-ship and ad revenue go up, prices go up as well. Actors demand higher wages.
Look to sports. Do you really think that those people are worth multiple millions for several months of playing games?
Entertainers are always involved with foolish antics: drugs scandals, prostitution scandals, murder scandals. They generally weather almost any scandal with little damage to their career. I think Tom Cruise's offense was quite a bit less dramatic than any of that.
People love those sexual antics, and other bits of trouble the star they hate to love, and love to hate get into. There is an entire industry built up around this gossip.
But, Cruise went over the top. He was espousing his religious beliefs while making cruel fun of those others have.
We don't tolerate that here in a public forum. What he may say in private is his business, but not in public. People are upset with that. It was over the top.
It was reported in Variety that Paramount and Cruise had already decided to absolve their relationship. Paramount wanted to decrease their obligation to his production company while Tom wanted to increase it. They could not agree on a final deal and decided to go their separate ways.
That was just part of it. If they had felt that his value hadn't been diluted, they would have worked it out.
Paramount officials were surprised when Viacom chief Sumner Redstone announced that they were firing Tom Cruise because of his devotion to scientology. Paramount told Variety that the split was over money and not his religious beliefs.
Paramount is spinning. It wasn't over his religious beliefs. More than a few in the entertainment industry believe in Scientology. They aren't the subject of controversy. He is.
Money comes into it when it's felt that his star value isn't what is once was. in the hinterland of the country where religious conservatives reign, his spouting will lessen the sales of the product.
Even the religious right in this country, for the most part, have no problem with people's odd religions. But when those people make fun of theirs, they become very unhappy. Cruise certainly alienated me, and I'm anything but religious. Think of how that other part of America feels about him.
So, yes, it's money. But, not really for the reasons they gave.
This is over a time with out the Playstation 3 available. The Playstation market has become saturated and slowing sales. But it still out sells the XBOX 360.
We shall see what happens in the near future when the PS 3 is available with HD games and MS has to compete directly with it.
This is over the past two years. No one thinks that either the 360 or the PS3 will gain the number of yearly sales their older brothers did. The Wii will do well, but likely not much better than before.
I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Personally, I'm trying to convince him to shell out his peas on an 8-core Mac when they arrive. He'd be more creative and can still buy his 'PC games'...
But the PS3 visuals look pretty good to me... The trailers do look amazing. I hope it does well. Just because of M$ making 360 and all.
Lemon Bon Bon
Some is cronyism. So take off 1% of the costs for that.
Producers collectively as a bunch are taking far more than 1% of a productions budget. Are you familiar with above the line and bellow the line salary?
Your 15 producers is a bit on the high side though. What show did you see that had so many?
For CSI Crime Scene Investigators IMDB lists 50 people who have been credited as some type of producer. 18 were credited for a temporary time, which leaves one to assume 32 are on staff.
Actors demand higher wages.
They can demand it but it doesn't mean it has to be given to them. On a typically budgeted $80 million dollar movie you have one or two actors taking a third of the budget.
But all of that is being scaled back.
Look to sports. Do you really think that those people are worth multiple millions for several months of playing games?
None of them are getting paid $20 million a game. The total amount of their contract extends over years. Generally when a player is traded to a new team, the new team picks up the same contract that player had with his old team. Pretty much all major sports leagues except baseball have a salary cap.
Players make far more money from commercial endorsement deals than they make from their team.
Money comes into it when it's felt that his star value isn't what is once was. in the hinterland of the country where religious conservatives reign, his spouting will lessen the sales of the product.
The money wasn't direct salary to Tom Cruise. It was money paying the over head of his production company. Tom Cruise being ridiculously rich Paramount was less interested in paying the overhead for his production company because Viacom is telling them to reduce costs. The same has happened with other studios and actors who have not gone on rants about scientology. Notably Jim Carey has also been released from his production deal with 20th Century Fox I believe it was.
Producers collectively as a bunch are taking far more than 1% of a productions budget. Are you familiar with above the line and bellow the line salary?
Yes, I am. But they still don't get as much as you think they do. I'll get to that in the next paragraph.
For CSI Crime Scene Investigators IMDB lists 50 people who have been credited as some type of producer. 18 were credited for a temporary time, which leaves one to assume 32 are on staff.
Many times a "producer" is a production assistant. Not a real producer. That takes care of many of the names rolling down. Many of these "producers" are spending their time running out for coffee.
They can demand it but it doesn't mean it has to be given to them. On a typically budgeted $80 million dollar movie you have one or two actors taking a third of the budget.
They get it if they are popular enough. Like ARod from the Yankees. He gets $26.5 million a year. Is he worth it? Not to me. But he brings fans to the stadium, and they want to see him on Tv.
But all of that is being scaled back.
I've heard that all before. But it always seems to go higher. One station several years ago said that action adventures were too expensive, so they were cutting back on them. Their ratings plummeted, and they changed their minds.
None of them are getting paid $20 million a game. The total amount of their contract extends over years. Generally when a player is traded to a new team, the new team picks up the same contract that player had with his old team. Pretty much all major sports leagues except baseball have a salary cap.
You have to look at income. No game makes $100 to $500 million. Each big movie might. And with DVD sales and toys and whatever other junk people will buy, they can easily double that.
Players make far more money from commercial endorsement deals than they make from their team.
A handful do. The rest do mostly local ads where they don't make much.
The money wasn't direct salary to Tom Cruise. It was money paying the over head of his production company. Tom Cruise being ridiculously rich Paramount was less interested in paying the overhead for his production company because Viacom is telling them to reduce costs. The same has happened with other studios and actors who have not gone on rants about scientology. Notably Jim Carey has also been released from his production deal with 20th Century Fox I believe it was.
a lot of stars have that these days. They get part of the profits, but don't share in the losses. They have their own production companies, etc. If they are worth it, nobody cares.
Carey changed agents, and left that contract because he wasn't happy.
I call that this thread has been derailed?
I second that. Especially since the discussion is now about how Apple should appeal to gamers... give it up guys.
I second that. Especially since the discussion is now about how Apple should appeal to gamers... give it up guys.
I'd be happy to. I made a simple statement, and it got out of hand.
I think Apple maybe dropping a hint that what they have available now is it and don't expect anything new or different. Look at the new layout of the Mac Pro configuration page on the Apple store! Select the Compare Specs tab and you will see "Which Mac are you?" with the 24" iMac and then the base config and beside that the suggestions for upgrades.
http://store.apple.com/Apple/WebObje...A0&nclm=MacPro
I'm afraid Apple are sticking to the current line up and telling us dreamers where to stick it in terms of a regular Conroe tower. Also I just read on The Register that some the quad core chips are power hungry beasts.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11...l_fwives_core/
Otellini suggests that next year there will be 50 — 80 watt quads so I wouldn't be surprised if Apple waits till then to shuffle the MAc Pro line up. MAybe they might put a regular Kentsfield in so we could use regular RAM. They might do a top end dual quad at the top end for the moment for those begging for it but I think their position is clear, if you look at the "Compare" page with iMac 24 at c$2000 and the Mac Pro at c¢2500. I don't think they will drop prices on the Mac Pro with any silent upgrade. They probably factored that into the original price at intro hence cheaper than a Dell.
Many times a "producer" is a production assistant.
In broadcast television the title producer means something a bit different than movies and filmed television.
In movies and filmed television a PA is pretty much the worst job you can have and the complete polar opposite of a producer. They don't get any official credit to the project and certainly don't get credit as a producer.
A friend of mine Paul Lindsay is currently a PA on the television show Las Vegas, see his name in there with the producers?
I'm finished.
So back on topic...which of the various OS's (Linux, Windows, OSX, Solaris) is best for a 8 core Mac Pro? Just from the perspective of SMP support...
I think that OS X might be last place simply because it would be the newest platform to the 8-way mix, with no official support or even official systems for it yet. The rest have supported 8-way for quite some time now, Sun was probably first but maybe Windows and Linux have probably mostly caught up. This is must my vaguely educated opinion.
Yeah we've gone way off topic. Obviously we are both stubborn. But I have to address one last thing.
In broadcast television the title producer means something a bit different than movies and filmed television.
In movies and filmed television a PA is pretty much the worst job you can have and the complete polar opposite of a producer. They don't get any official credit to the project and certainly don't get credit as a producer.
A friend of mine Paul Lindsay is currently a PA on the television show Las Vegas, see his name in there with the producers?
I'm finished.
You can have the last word.