GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   No more Middle Men? (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=983022)

Semi-Retired-Dave 08-19-2010 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wig (Post 17427571)
You really believe the movie was financed with customer funds?

Oh brother. :Oh crap

PornMD 08-19-2010 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrozenJag (Post 17427480)
My worry is does this put Epass as a company in jeopardy? Many of us have significant money in their hands. Shall I submit for a wire?

Just saying im a bit concerned.

http://www.nametrader.com/youshittinme.jpg

epitome 08-19-2010 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WiredGuy (Post 17427249)
Does anyone know if it will get nationwide release tomorrow as originally planned?
WG

Everything points to no. It's what I've been planning to do on August 20th for quite awhile.

pornstar2fag 08-19-2010 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog (Post 17427399)
From the guy that has to keep changing handles. :1orglaugh

10 + people use this nick.

ShellyCrash 08-19-2010 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PornMD (Post 17427316)
I give them props for trying too as far as the making of the movie, getting an enticing cast put together etc. It does LOOK interesting and I would like to see it. I don't give them props for advertising for it on the very sites that are crumbling this industry, and I'm surprised so many people around here seem either oblivious to that fact or oblivious to how wrong that is. They chose to advertise that movie on a bunch of sites that give all your shit away for free.

You know what though- that's what they get. I'm not going to shit on them for making the movie, but if that's where they chose to promote it then they are reaping what they sewed. The same people surfing those sites are the same people that share torrents. They aren't going to support a drama in the theatres. :2 cents:

datatank 08-19-2010 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornstar2fag (Post 17426836)
what? it bombed? you mean all that amazing golden traffic on the pornhub network did nothing for it? omg, who would have believed it? they have "more traffic than god" though, how can it be? i'm sure none of those porn thieves on those tubes did a search for "middle men movie + torrent". couldn't happen. i mean they are so upstanding and want to contribute so much. i can't believe it at all. i am shocked.

why the hate?

datatank 08-19-2010 02:44 PM

LOL I think I have heard it all now.

Do you think my $2k in EPASS is safe or did he use it to make this movie?

dyna mo 08-19-2010 02:51 PM

could someone explain to me please how making a flop movie is the current way to launder moneys?

JohnnyTheJerkoffGymsock 08-19-2010 02:53 PM

Too bad wanted to see that movie, I wonder if Luke Wilson was as bored doing it as he was doing ATT commercials.

docputer 08-19-2010 02:56 PM

Perhaps it will do well on video

dyna mo 08-19-2010 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyTheJerkoffGymsock (Post 17427776)
Too bad wanted to see that movie, I wonder if Luke Wilson was as bored doing it as he was doing ATT commercials.

perhaps some good will come out of this movie and no one will cast that deadpan deadbeat wannabe actor in anything, including commercials. biggest mistake the middlemen movie makers did was cast him and have him narrate.

Varius 08-19-2010 03:32 PM

They will make profit. You guys are forgetting selling the pay-cable rights to someone like SHO or HBO and the OnDemand orders. :2 cents:

candyflip 08-19-2010 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 17427773)
could someone explain to me please how making a flop movie is the current way to launder moneys?

http://files.list.co.uk/images/2008/08/21/producers.jpg

dyna mo 08-19-2010 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by candyflip (Post 17427860)

they say a picture is worth 1000 words but i have no idea what this pic means re: the question. :upsidedow

PornMD 08-19-2010 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 17427865)
they say a picture is worth 1000 words but i have no idea what this pic means re: the question. :upsidedow

From IMDB:

Quote:

New York, 1959. Max Bialystock was once the king of Broadway, but now all his shows close on opening night. Things turn around when he's visited by the neurotic accountant Leo Bloom, who proposes a scheme tailor-made for producers who can only make flops: raise far more money than you need, then make sure the show is despised. No one will be interested in it, so you can pocket the surplus. To this end, they produce a musical called Springtime for Hitler written by escaped Nazi Franz Liebken. Then they get the insanely flamboyant Roger De Bris to direct. Finally, they hire as a lead actress the loopy Swedish bombshell Ulla (whose last name has over 15 syllables). As opening night draws near, what can go wrong? Well, there's no accounting for taste...
I never saw the movie or the play it's based on but sorta knew what it was about. Not entirely sure how it'd translate to the question about money laundering since there was no "money raising" for this movie afaik.

GregE 08-19-2010 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShellyCrash (Post 17427738)
You know what though- that's what they get. I'm not going to shit on them for making the movie, but if that's where they chose to promote it then they are reaping what they sewed.

Well, keep in mind we're getting this info secondhand, but if true, I would agree that that's some serious bad form.


Quote:

Originally Posted by ShellyCrash (Post 17427738)
The same people surfing those sites are the same people that share torrents. They aren't going to support a drama in the theatres. :2 cents:

Trying to sell any sort of content, mainstream or not, on a tube is like trying to sell sand on the beach.

marketsmart 08-19-2010 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude (Post 17427406)

i dont see the fail in this pic...

to me it looks like something magical will happen as soon as that motor gets started... :2 cents:



.

Ethersync 08-19-2010 04:45 PM

The official numbers are in. It's going to be on 16 screens this weekend.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/counts/...0&wk=34&p=.htm

PornMD 08-19-2010 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ethersync (Post 17427999)
The official numbers are in. It's going to be on 16 screens this weekend.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/counts/...0&wk=34&p=.htm

Ouch. I say it'll get back up to $400 per theater this weekend for a mystical magical $6,400 gross and that'll be all she wrote. On both Monday and Wednesday this week, it made a whopping $70 avg per theater. $70! With ticket prices being what they are that's what, 7-10 people per day avg per theater?

So if it doesn't go wide, it'll end up with just over $700,000 final gross.

Brujah 08-19-2010 05:05 PM

I think the topic is still interesting enough, and it could make a great HBO or SHO series with good writers. Did the writer just suck? Was the content too "porn" for mainstream to accept?

PornMD 08-19-2010 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah (Post 17428047)
I think the topic is still interesting enough, and it could make a great HBO or SHO series with good writers. Did the writer just suck? Was the content too "porn" for mainstream to accept?

All I know is that the Facebook movie likely won't flop this bad, and that'll be tragic. This actually did look interesting enough and I couldn't care less about the story behind Facebook n whatnot. I hope that one flops but it probably won't. :(

Perhaps it was too porn for mainstream.

lazycash 08-19-2010 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrozenJag (Post 17427480)
My worry is does this put Epass as a company in jeopardy? Many of us have significant money in their hands. Shall I submit for a wire?

Just saying im a bit concerned.

Lol, the movie was loosely based around Epass owner, other than that there is no correlation.

dyna mo 08-19-2010 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PornMD (Post 17427888)
From IMDB:



I never saw the movie or the play it's based on but sorta knew what it was about. Not entirely sure how it'd translate to the question about money laundering since there was no "money raising" for this movie afaik.

ahh, i see. :thumbsup
Quote:

Originally Posted by marketsmart (Post 17427985)
i dont see the fail in this pic...

to me it looks like something magical will happen as soon as that motor gets started... :2 cents:



.

:1orglaugh

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude 08-19-2010 05:50 PM

http://www.sgrm.com/art43-5.gif

http://www.expandmywealth.com/wp-con...low_chart2.jpg

Quote:

Movie Execs Charged in Money-Laundering Case

Federal prosecutors say Limelight Films was a front in international drug smuggling.
July 20, 2006|Andrew Blankstein and Richard Winton, Times Staff Writers
Limelight Films seemed from the outside like so many upstart production companies in Hollywood: It had a Sunset Boulevard address, a connection to Tinseltown royalty and deals to distribute a small slate of low-budget films.

But federal authorities have alleged that the film corporation was a front for an international drug-smuggling and money-laundering operation stretching from Los Angeles to Switzerland.

stigation dubbed "Operation Director's Cut."

D'Esclavelles and De Basseville were arrested in Arlington, Va., and charged with conspiracy to distribute Ecstasy.

Authorities said they learned about Limelight from an informant and set up a sting operation in which agents with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration posed as Ecstasy buyers working for South American drug dealers.

The criminal complaint alleges that Limelight executives laundered $300,000 through the film company for the undercover agents. The arrests followed numerous meetings between the agents and Limelight executives, who allegedly promised to arrange the sale of half a million Ecstasy tablets, according to court documents.
Quote:

Investing in a film is considered a smart way to launder money. Accounting practices are weak, transparency low, and if you are a thug with a lot of cash ?to invest? you get to hang around movie stars by bankrolling a film.
ADG

NickB. 08-19-2010 06:02 PM

I havent been able to watch it yet, I hope everything works out well for Chris

PornNewz 08-19-2010 06:02 PM

a not too bad review from Hollywood Reporter

candyflip 08-19-2010 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 17427865)
they say a picture is worth 1000 words but i have no idea what this pic means re: the question. :upsidedow

They came up with a scheme that would allow them to profit from a flop. That was it...didn't really have anything to do with money laundering.

craftyc 08-19-2010 08:34 PM

I guess all that is left to be said is "Porn is Dead" or maybe "Adapt or Die" ;)

lagcam 08-19-2010 09:04 PM

A movie with this subject matter was never going to be a box office smash at the cinema. I am surprised at how many people are surprised by this.

As many have said before me, it was always going to make most of its money through other channels.

tony286 08-19-2010 09:17 PM

The people vs larry flynt and boogie nights two amazing films ,amazing performances and at the box office they were duds. People dont want to watch movies about porn.

Semi-Retired-Dave 08-19-2010 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony299 (Post 17428476)
The people vs larry flynt and boogie nights two amazing films ,amazing performances and at the box office they were duds. People dont want to watch movies about porn.

People don't want to watch a movie about porn, they want to watch porn. :thumbsup
Plus, times are hard, so people want to take their spouses, family, kids to the movies. This is something you would go see with a buddy.

tony286 08-19-2010 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberAge-Dave (Post 17428487)
People don't want to watch a movie about porn, they want to watch porn. :thumbsup
Plus, times are hard, so people want to take their spouses, family, kids to the movies. This is something you would go see with a buddy.

you are right:thumbsup

directfiesta 08-19-2010 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Varius (Post 17427828)
They will make profit. You guys are forgetting selling the pay-cable rights to someone like SHO or HBO and the OnDemand orders. :2 cents:

lol... you obviously never been in that business ... I did . Already posted that 6 million units needs to be sold to barely break even ... as for ppv-ondemand-cable, many other titles are trying to get in those spots .. no one will rush to the doors to book that film.

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude 08-19-2010 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony299 (Post 17428476)
The people vs larry flynt and boogie nights two amazing films ,amazing performances and at the box office they were duds. People dont want to watch movies about porn.

People vs Larry Flynt grossed over $20 million domestically, and Boogie Nights grossed over $26 million at the box office domestically (and over $43 million internationally).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah (Post 17428047)
I think the topic is still interesting enough, and it could make a great HBO or SHO series with good writers. Did the writer just suck? Was the content too "porn" for mainstream to accept?

The creators (Malick, et al) originally peddled "Middle Men" to cable as a series, but when there were no takers, they decided to try and make it as a film.

Even with the "more traffic than God", traffic from Mansef / Manwin tube sites (built upon stolen content), it bombed big time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Varius (Post 17427828)
They will make profit. You guys are forgetting selling the pay-cable rights to someone like SHO or HBO and the OnDemand orders. :2 cents:

Quote:

Originally Posted by lagcam (Post 17428463)
A movie with this subject matter was never going to be a box office smash at the cinema. I am surprised at how many people are surprised by this.

As many have said before me, it was always going to make most of its money through other channels.

The money that cable companies pay for a movie is largely based upon it's box office performance. The cable companies previously rejected "Middle Man" as a cable project. How much do you really think they are going to pay for it now? :1orglaugh

Anyway you cut it, "Middle Men" was a dismal flop, and will most likely have to be sold as a loss leader...

As the Distributor, Paramount will likely get a lion's share of the ancillary markets, as paltry as that may be, given the poor box office performance numbers.

One more factor to consider is that even box office bonanza movies, only make back about what they make during their theatrical release through the various other markets (DVD, VOD, Cable, etc).

At this point, "Middle Men" has grossed less than $700k (that's not counting the ad budget, or deducting Paramount's distributor share, or even the theater's share), so any chance of this movie breaking even at this point appears to be a total pipe dream.

Not too worry though, because Middle Men is sure to make ~$20 more tonight, because I am heading out to see it shortly, since it will not be playing anywhere near me tomorrow, or much of anywhere for that matter. :1orglaugh

I'll post my review tomorrow... :thumbsup

ADG

xNetworx 08-19-2010 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude (Post 17428504)
People vs Larry Flynt grossed over $20 million domestically, and Boogie Nights grossed over $26 million at the box office domestically (and over $43 million internationally).



The creators (Malick, et al) originally peddled "Middle Men" to cable as a series, but when there were no takers, they decided to try and make it as a film.

Even with the "more traffic than God", traffic from Mansef / Manwin tube sites (built upon stolen content), it bombed big time.





The money that cable companies pay for a movie is largely based upon it's box office performance. The cable companies previously rejected "Middle Man" as a cable project. How much do you really think they are going to pay for it now? :1orglaugh

Anyway you cut it, "Middle Men" was a dismal flop, and will most likely have to be sold as a loss leader...

As the Distributor, Paramount will likely get a lion's share of the ancillary markets, as paltry as that may be, given the poor box office performance numbers.

One more factor to consider is that even box office bonanza movies, only make back about what they make during their theatrical release through the various other markets (DVD, VOD, Cable, etc).

At this point, "Middle Men" has grossed less than $700k (that's not counting the ad budget, or deducting Paramount's distributor share, or even the theater's share), so any chance of this movie breaking even at this point appears to be a total pipe dream.

Not too worry though, because Middle Men is sure to make ~$20 more tonight, because I am heading out to see it shortly, since it will not be playing anywhere near me tomorrow, or much of anywhere for that matter. :1orglaugh

I'll post my review tomorrow... :thumbsup

ADG

Why do you have such a hard-on to bash this film? Serious question.

dyna mo 08-19-2010 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude (Post 17428156)

i see. so mallick is a drug dealer who wants to hang out with owen wilson. makes sense.

FrozenJag 08-19-2010 10:13 PM

Wow, the guys laughing at my concern truly are idiots. Probably the same guys sending sobv sales still thinking they'll get paid.

I don't live on gfy but it was my understanding epass owner funded the movie, if he goes broke what keeps him from cleaning out one of hisotherbusinesses holding millions and disapearing? It's not like their a real bank with insurance.

Fucking morons wow. Then again, if I had five dollars in my account I probably wouldn't be worried either.

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude 08-20-2010 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 17428539)
i see. so mallick is a drug dealer who wants to hang out with owen wilson. makes sense.

I never inferred that Mallick was/is a drug dealer. How did you deduce that, or do you know something about him that I don't? :winkwink:

BTW, Owen Wilson wasn't even in the movie, genius (maybe it would have faired better at the box office if he was). :1orglaugh

Anyway, I just got back home a little while ago from seeing "Middle Men". I'll post my review later today after I get some sleep...

ADG

Shap 08-20-2010 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lazycash (Post 17428073)
Lol, the movie was loosely based around Epass owner, other than that there is no correlation.

The reason he said that is because the guy who funded and produced the movie owns epass.

Shap 08-20-2010 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrozenJag (Post 17428542)
Wow, the guys laughing at my concern truly are idiots. Probably the same guys sending sobv sales still thinking they'll get paid.

I don't live on gfy but it was my understanding epass owner funded the movie, if he goes broke what keeps him from cleaning out one of hisotherbusinesses holding millions and disapearing? It's not like their a real bank with insurance.

Fucking morons wow. Then again, if I had five dollars in my account I probably wouldn't be worried either.

I got what you were saying :)

My understanding is Chris can easily handle the cost of the movie. Of course you never know what the true situation is. but from everything I've heard it won't put him out of business.

Sly 08-20-2010 06:58 AM

I saw the trailer several times on TV, and to be completely honest... not only did the movie look dull and cliché, I had no idea what the movie was even supposed to be about. Some good named actors, yes, including one of my favorites: Ribisi. But aside from that... I saw guys wearing suits, walking off an airplane, and throwing money into the air. What about that makes me want to shell out $10, in the summer, to go watch this? Nothing really.

From reading little notes here on the board about the movie... I still don't even know what it's supposed to be about. Porn? Scamming porn? Getting rich on the Internet?

This isn't hating. Just honest comments. I wish it would have went better for them, pretty cool for giving it a shot though, I'll give them that.

Dirty Lord 08-20-2010 07:00 AM

i dont know, for sure

candyflip 08-20-2010 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta (Post 17428500)
lol... you obviously never been in that business ... I did . Already posted that 6 million units needs to be sold to barely break even ... as for ppv-ondemand-cable, many other titles are trying to get in those spots .. no one will rush to the doors to book that film.

Didn't he just post the other day about a big movie investment opportunity?

FrozenJag 08-20-2010 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shap (Post 17429059)
I got what you were saying :)

My understanding is Chris can easily handle the cost of the movie. Of course you never know what the true situation is. but from everything I've heard it won't put him out of business.

Thanks for the info Shap. I knew surely I wasnt the only one capable of thinking outside the box and having alot to loose. For all I knew this movie could break him. Good to know he atleast allegedly is multi multi.

tony286 08-20-2010 08:13 AM

"People vs Larry Flynt grossed over $20 million domestically, and Boogie Nights grossed over $26 million at the box office domestically (and over $43 million internationally)."

When considering what it cost to make them they were flops not train wrecks but flops.

Mutt 08-20-2010 08:22 AM

i was going to give him kudos for getting the movie made and a distribution deal, the odds against getting a theatrical movie made and produced are astronomical. studios and production companies have hundreds of scripts in development, only a tiny fraction ever make it to production. of those that do get made, the large majority are failures - movie business is all about the blockbuster these days though hitting some solid doubles is profitable.

if he footed the bill for the entire film, what a waste and a total conceit. that money could have gone to so many better things, give it to a hospital, get a clinic or floor name after you or somebody you love(d), fund a summer camp for sick kids ...

Thoroughbred horse industry and the movie industry survive on people with too much money and too much vanity.

dyna mo 08-20-2010 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude (Post 17428729)
I never inferred that Mallick was/is a drug dealer.

aww come on now adg, don't woos out-stand your ground. you posted this


Quote:

Movie Execs Charged in Money-Laundering Case

Federal prosecutors say Limelight Films was a front in international drug smuggling.
July 20, 2006|Andrew Blankstein and Richard Winton, Times Staff Writers
Limelight Films seemed from the outside like so many upstart production companies in Hollywood: It had a Sunset Boulevard address, a connection to Tinseltown royalty and deals to distribute a small slate of low-budget films.

But federal authorities have alleged that the film corporation was a front for an international drug-smuggling and money-laundering operation stretching from Los Angeles to Switzerland.

stigation dubbed "Operation Director's Cut."

D'Esclavelles and De Basseville were arrested in Arlington, Va., and charged with conspiracy to distribute Ecstasy.

Authorities said they learned about Limelight from an informant and set up a sting operation in which agents with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration posed as Ecstasy buyers working for South American drug dealers.

The criminal complaint alleges that Limelight executives laundered $300,000 through the film company for the undercover agents. The arrests followed numerous meetings between the agents and Limelight executives, who allegedly promised to arrange the sale of half a million Ecstasy tablets, according to court documents.

ADG[/QUOTE]

:)

Caligari 08-20-2010 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony299 (Post 17429269)
"People vs Larry Flynt grossed over $20 million domestically, and Boogie Nights grossed over $26 million at the box office domestically (and over $43 million internationally)."

When considering what it cost to make them they were flops not train wrecks but flops.

Boogie Nights - Budget, $15 million. Gross 43 million. Not fantastic but definitely not a flop.

Caligari 08-20-2010 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude (Post 17428504)
The creators (Malick, et al) originally peddled "Middle Men" to cable as a series, but when there were no takers, they decided to try and make it as a film.

Whats really interesting is that HBO IS MAKING a series about the porn biz, xbiz has a story on it.

Varius 08-20-2010 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by candyflip (Post 17429215)
Didn't he just post the other day about a big movie investment opportunity?

Indeed I did, and that film project has almost broken-even already just due to Foreign Sales (Distribution) and New Mexico Tax Break.

That project isn't aiming for huge box office success,either; it's not that kind of film. It's aiming for awards and will make money through other channels.

For the comment above regarding SHO/HBO only paying a lot for box office hits, that's false. They pay when they feel a film fits their audience/genre and especially when they get exclusivity to it. They are premium paid channels, not network TV; so they can afford to do this as long as they have faith the film is something their subscribers will want to see.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123