Walsingham

My point was to say if both films are losing money why are the indies seen as "worse" to lose money? Even still, lets say that the blockbuster does $50 million and is number one on a slow week. That's (by the above scenario) 5 million tickets. That's 45 million pirated views under the 90% scenario described and $450 million in lost revenue. The thing about availability is that it holds through in piracy. Do you think, honestly, that a film that barely squeaked into 2 theaters is even going to be made available to pirate, and if it is who would know about it to download it. The stuff that gets pirated are the big budget blockbusters and the Oscar bait art films that have buzz. Could there be an audience to pirate a film like, say, The Ghastly Love of Johnny X that only showed a handful of festivals? Amentep, I believe we're both trying to say that it doesn't matter if a lot of top ten movies get pirated. Or that even a greater proportion. Your mistake - and its very understandable - is in assuming that it is the percentage return on investment which matters. But it isn't, by itself. Any investment proposal is tailored around the return, the risk on the return, and the scale of the return. Blockbusters get pirated, they even fail outright if they don't catch the pubic imagination just right. So the risks are high. But the rtruns are huge, and they are in an order of magnitude which suits big investors. So, if I am making an indie movie I have to pitch a return which won't allow an investor to put all their money with me, won't return a monetary 'win' on a scale I can recognise, and can still get pirated out of existence when people are too lazy to find local showings or buy the DVD. Most indie film makers I've met aren't even in indie films to make money. They are only in them as part of the lifecycle on the way to making big budget Hollywood films.

I think it's only fair to remind you that "he" is the male pronoun. * I think you just made a mistake there, but I know you are smarter than me so I'm not going to say anything*

I am surprised to hear he is racist. I wasn't aware he had strong feelings other than a powerful love for his own brilliance.

Side point: I tried twice yesterday, and twice this morning, but I simply _cannot_ be bothered to read a long post with multiple quotes in. If you have to respond to multiple points, try to collate them first?

I think it's only sensible to remind you gentlemen that oby isn't even a woman, let alone Russian. It's been amusing to pretend otherwise, but don't start discussing 'her' views as if they are representative. The only thing they represent is someone with some sort of mild mental disorder.

I've always had a thing for hockey playing women. I think it's the calf muscles, but my best mate says I just like chicks with sticks.

Have you ever strangled a fox? That's probably an indicator.

Weirdly enough I was just thinking the same thing, Ros.

For some strange reason people who meet me keep thinking I must have gone to a public school. I have no frelling idea why. Is it because you can't sit down?

that's a very sad movie. Agreed. And it is sad because of the way it shows off Monica Belluci's character as a figure of obsession and jealousy. Yet at the same time an incredibly alluring woman.

The first man to send me weekly project delivery risk spreadsheets will be hung from the yardarm. Until it bloody well hurts.

When are you not? A terrifyingly good question.

Well, which one of us has a broken nose, went to public school and is the host of a popular chat show?

How are you coping with being a lord of leisure, Ros?

If I may stretch a point a bit, isn't the Morgan photos thing especially relevant? Our media-scape is super saturated at the moment. The only way big channelscan get attention is using shock stories, and shock faces, and slathering them in sauce. A young man died, and whatever the circumstances, I think that's quite sad. As I've said, I don't believe it's been proven beyond reasonable doubt that another man should be sent to suffer jail for ten/twenty years. That would be equally sad, in my opinion. The only thing which makes me actually angry is that we have the inestimable luxury of being participants - through our respective democracies - in our societies and cultures. But we can't exercise that involvement in a meaningful sense because the information we rely on is fed to us as entertainment. And because the way in which the majority of people are raised and work and interact with each other is like dumb animals. *rant curtailed*

I presume you chaps have seen Malena?

Say hi to Oby for us. It feels oddly appropriate that I just watched Severance. ~ Friend turned up today, and we just sat in the garden talking plans and misfortunes. Few cups of coffee, and a bowl of ice cream.

I just finished watching 'Severance', which is showing on the BBC iplayer. I know any movie which tries to take off a genre while still expanding it is walking a tricky line, I felt this one did it well. There's plenty of gore. People die, sometimes expectedly, sometimes unexpectedly. The characters evolve. It has a good cathartic ending. Fully recommend.

I have to say, with all due respect to Cal, that Rebellion (/'Supremacy') was great. The only thing I dislike is the user interface. Hard to get anything done sensibly. I liked the random force sensitive people. I also liked the concealed traitor elements. The hunt for the rebel base could be a grind, but few things funnier than accidentally stumbling into it then scrambling to muster a big enough fleet. Or luring the rebels into a trap! How did we get onto this? Well, I would say I actually liked some of my little playable people in Rebellion, and would go to great lengths to rescue them or utilise them on special missions. However, I have to wonder if this wasn't as much due to the legacy of having no sodding toys as a kid and having to make do with rocks and dead owls and so forth.

All religions were considered a cult a sometime in there history. Those that last long enough and gain enough members become a religion. Actually, the slightly more rigorous definition I was applying is that: - A religion makes its scriptures and doctrine freely available. - A cult constrains access to information dependent on rank and (in the case of people like Aum Shinrikyo and Scientology) cash payments.

Okay so he made a mistake 10 years ago but is that a reason to dismiss everything and anything he did after that? YES. EDIT: Piers Morgan

Unfortunately I'm termporarily indispoed hungover. I will reply to the many interesting points when I can understand them.

I have it on good authority that they must be propitiated with a sacrifice. If I were a sky god I'd enjoy a good cup of tea.

He's not 'afraid' because what possible harm can he come to? I am afraid that if I amplify Calax's comments I will merely undermine their power with my irascibility. Look what he did regarding the photos. He's as bad as the sacks of manure who sold them to him.

Why can't I be both?