Re: Babylon 5 Universe Novels?
Dupa T. Parrot
> Re. the new novels that were (are?) going to be coming out:
>
> Were they graphic novels or regular (all words) novels like the last
> three trilogies?
Both. The graphic novels (comic books) came out in July, Aug. and Sept.
of this year. Three issues with three different covers per issue.
> Is there a chance that the new novels are still going to come out, or
> is that project 100% dead?
>
> KoshN
>
>
The novelization of the movie is out now by Keith R.A. DeCandido with
another in the pipeline for June, 2006. Then perhaps one or two more.
There was more news from DeCandido in an interview on a podcast called
The Signal (see http://www.serenityfirefly.com).
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dupa T. Parrot <du...@dupanet.com>
Bartlett, IL, USA http://www.dupanet.com O-
John W. Kennedy
> KoshN wrote:
>
>> Re. the new novels that were (are?) going to be coming out:
>>
>> Were they graphic novels or regular (all words) novels like the last
>> three trilogies?
>
>
> Both. The graphic novels (comic books) came out in July, Aug. and Sept.
> of this year. Three issues with three different covers per issue.
>
>> Is there a chance that the new novels are still going to come out, or
>> is that project 100% dead?
>>
>> KoshN
>>
>>
>
> The novelization of the movie is out now by Keith R.A. DeCandido with
> another in the pipeline for June, 2006. Then perhaps one or two more.
>
> There was more news from DeCandido in an interview on a podcast called
> The Signal (see http://www.serenityfirefly.com).
<MANUEL-THE-WAITER>¿Que?</MANUEL-THE-WAITER>
--
John W. Kennedy
"You can, if you wish, class all science-fiction together; but it is
about as perceptive as classing the works of Ballantyne, Conrad and W.
W. Jacobs together as the 'sea-story' and then criticizing _that_."
-- C. S. Lewis. "An Experiment in Criticism"
Amy Guskin
(in article <4QV4f.11361$vV4....@fe08.lga>):
> Dupa T. Parrot wrote:
>> KoshN wrote:
>>
>>> Re. the new novels that were (are?) going to be coming out:
>>>
>>> Were they graphic novels or regular (all words) novels like the last
>>> three trilogies?
>>
>>
>> Both. The graphic novels (comic books) came out in July, Aug. and Sept.
>> of this year. Three issues with three different covers per issue.
>>
>>> Is there a chance that the new novels are still going to come out, or
>>> is that project 100% dead?
>>>
>>> KoshN
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The novelization of the movie is out now by Keith R.A. DeCandido with
>> another in the pipeline for June, 2006. Then perhaps one or two more.
>>
>> There was more news from DeCandido in an interview on a podcast called
>> The Signal (see http://www.serenityfirefly.com).
>
> <MANUEL-THE-WAITER>¿Que?</MANUEL-THE-WAITER> <<
Okay, that's better than anything I could have come up with. Tip o' the hat
to you.
Amy
Dupa T. Parrot
> KoshN wrote:
>
>> Re. the new novels that were (are?) going to be coming out:
>>
>> Were they graphic novels or regular (all words) novels like the last
>> three trilogies?
>
>
> Both. The graphic novels (comic books) came out in July, Aug. and Sept.
> of this year. Three issues with three different covers per issue.
>
>> Is there a chance that the new novels are still going to come out, or
>> is that project 100% dead?
>>
>> KoshN
>>
>>
>
> The novelization of the movie is out now by Keith R.A. DeCandido with
> another in the pipeline for June, 2006. Then perhaps one or two more.
>
> There was more news from DeCandido in an interview on a podcast called
> The Signal (see http://www.serenityfirefly.com).
>
Jan
>
>Amy Guskin wrote:
>> >>On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 18:45:29 -0400, John W. Kennedy wrote
>> (in article <4QV4f.11361$vV4....@fe08.lga>):
>> >> KoshN wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Re. the new novels that were (are?) going to be coming out:
>> >>>
>> >>> Were they graphic novels or regular (all words) novels like the last
>> >>> three trilogies?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> is that project 100% dead?
>> >>>
>> >>> KoshN
>> > <MANUEL-THE-WAITER>=BFQue?</MANUEL-THE-WAITER> <<
>>
>> Okay, that's better than anything I could have come up with. Tip o' the =
>hat
>> to you.
>>
>> Amy
>
>You know, I was sorta hoping for a serious answer from somebody, like
>maybe JMS, or somebody else who remembered the last *real* info. we had
>on the new, B5 universe novels. I tried looking under JMSNews by
>"Mongoose" and "novel" to no avail. I seem to remember JMS saying
>that Mongoose made an announcement on their web page, but that they
>"jumped the gun" and now the project was dead or probably dead, but I
>can't find any JMS posts in JMSNews saying that.
>
>The last I have are:
>
>06/15/2004
>http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=3D1-17110
>"Also, expect word fairly soon-ish about a new series of B5 novels."
>
>.=2E.and...
>
>http://www.newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?s=3D&threadid=3D31677
>
>
>Maybe I'm having a senior moment, but I could've sworn that JMS said
>more about this.
>
>
>KoshN
The last thing I remember JMS saying was at the Philly Wizard Con where he said
something to the effect that there were going to be some novels but that the
company involved (Mongoose) had oversteped their authority somewhat and that the
books were now in limbo. I'll post the link to the transcript later tonight.
At the same time JMS mentioned that he hasn't completed the B5 graphic novel
because each time a feature opportunity comes up, he zigs the GN away from that.
More recently, over at B5TV.com, a Tony Lee posted that he's going to be doing
the first of the novels and that (unnamed) DC had prevented the previously
announced comics so his novel would be based on one of proposed comic outlines.
The thread he posted to is here
http://www.b5tv.com/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/303831/page/0/fpart/8/vc/1
JMS, if you're reading, any chance you could comment?
Jan
--
Here, gathered together in common cause
We agree to recognize this singular truth
and this singular rule:
That we must be kind to one another.
G'Kar (J. Michael Straczynski)
Jan
Found the link to the transcript: http://jmsnews.com/docs/JMSWizardWorld.txt
jms...@aol.com
Jan wrote:
> More recently, over at B5TV.com, a Tony Lee posted that he's going to be doing
> the first of the novels and that (unnamed) DC had prevented the previously
> announced comics so his novel would be based on one of proposed comic outlines.
> The thread he posted to is here
> http://www.b5tv.com/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/303831/page/0/fpart/8/vc/1
>
> JMS, if you're reading, any chance you could comment?
>
Mongoose asked me to consult with them, since they are doing just a
couple of books and as I understand it ONLY for release in the
UK...asked if I could help come up with some stories for them, or
provide material from myh notes, proofread the manuscripts, make
corrections, maybe write an intro, and do lots of other stuff...and I
said okay, great, what are you going to pay for my work?
At first, silence. As if they were stunned that I would actually ask
to be paid for my time and work. Then finally, they came back
with...five hundred bucks per book.
To which I responded, "You have GOT to be kidding me."
I have, subsequently, washed my hands of the Mongoose books. I haven't
seen anything, don't know what they're doing, so sure as hell it ain't
canonical.
This is getting annoyingly commonplace. I got an email from the Warner
Bros. division handling the German DVD superbox, for instance, wherein
they said, very happily, that they were figuring on getting maybe six
to ten million bucks for this new edition, and would I help them to
make sure everything was right, to consult with them on the design, the
packaging, the text, the artwork, the docs, a bunch of stuff. So I
said, again not unreasonably, "And what is WB's standard fee for this
consultation?"
To which WB responded that they don't pay people for the honor to be
involved in these DVDs. But he's getting paid, the guy who did the
artwork is getting paid, the only person who's not getting paid is the
guy who made it. So I declined. They replied with ominous words
suggesting that it would be bad if I let the fans down...but I don't
bow down for emotional blackmail.
Writing is a job no less than being a carpenter. All a writer has, at
the end of the day, is time, energy and visceral material. And right
now, there's an awful lot going on career wise, and my free time is at
a premium. You pay for someone's time if you have them consult, or
write, or research for you, or if you otherwise engage their
professional services. That is pro forma for every profession on the
planet...except, it seems, for writing, where they think you're so glad
to be asked to the ball that you'll go along with being treated
unprofessionally.
Pass.
jms
Amy Guskin
(in article <1129705211.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
And acting. Let's not forget the actors not being paid for their time to do
commentaries etc. Which, if you're an A-list actor or the director of a film
- somebody who gets _points_ - is one thing.
Amy
Matt Ion
> This is getting annoyingly commonplace. I got an email from the Warner
> Bros. division handling the German DVD superbox, for instance, wherein
> they said, very happily, that they were figuring on getting maybe six
> to ten million bucks for this new edition, and would I help them to
> make sure everything was right, to consult with them on the design, the
> packaging, the text, the artwork, the docs, a bunch of stuff. So I
> said, again not unreasonably, "And what is WB's standard fee for this
> consultation?"
>
> To which WB responded that they don't pay people for the honor to be
> involved in these DVDs. But he's getting paid, the guy who did the
> artwork is getting paid, the only person who's not getting paid is the
> guy who made it. So I declined. They replied with ominous words
> suggesting that it would be bad if I let the fans down...but I don't
> bow down for emotional blackmail.
And WB obviously has NO understanding of B5 fans, who are just as likely
to NOT buy the superbox to show their displeasure with WB's treatment
of their (for lack of a better word) hero.
(Not that either of us are actually suggestiong such a thing....
<whistling dixie>)
> Writing is a job no less than being a carpenter. All a writer has, at
> the end of the day, is time, energy and visceral material. And right
> now, there's an awful lot going on career wise, and my free time is at
> a premium. You pay for someone's time if you have them consult, or
> write, or research for you, or if you otherwise engage their
> professional services. That is pro forma for every profession on the
> planet...except, it seems, for writing, where they think you're so glad
> to be asked to the ball that you'll go along with being treated
> unprofessionally.
But you're an ARTIST. You're supposed to be willing and HAPPY to STARVE
for your art! No?
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0542-3, 10/19/2005
Tested on: 10/19/2005 7:17:11 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
Andrew Swallow
[snip]
>
> To which WB responded that they don't pay people for the honor to be
> involved in these DVDs. But he's getting paid, the guy who did the
> artwork is getting paid, the only person who's not getting paid is the
> guy who made it. So I declined. They replied with ominous words
> suggesting that it would be bad if I let the fans down...but I don't
> bow down for emotional blackmail.
As a scriptwriter and/or producer are you getting residues for each DVD
sold?
Getting paid 3 times for the same piece of work is rare. Some times you
just have to get a bigger second payment.
Andrew Swallow
Mox Fulder
[...]
> This is getting annoyingly commonplace. I got an email from the Warner
> Bros. division handling the German DVD superbox, for instance, wherein
> they said, very happily, that they were figuring on getting maybe six
> to ten million bucks for this new edition, and would I help them to
> make sure everything was right, to consult with them on the design, the
> packaging, the text, the artwork, the docs, a bunch of stuff. So I
> said, again not unreasonably, "And what is WB's standard fee for this
> consultation?"
> To which WB responded that they don't pay people for the honor to be
> involved in these DVDs. But he's getting paid, the guy who did the
> artwork is getting paid, the only person who's not getting paid is the
> guy who made it. So I declined. They replied with ominous words
> suggesting that it would be bad if I let the fans down...but I don't
> bow down for emotional blackmail.
The fact they would say such things does not surprise me. What troubles me
is, they say those things with a straight face, as if it were the most
natural thing in the world. Those people seem to have the same regard for
right and wrong that a psychopath has. Is it a genetic defect? Can nurture
create such aliens? Can healthy human beings really communicate with them?
We may speak the same language, which is helpful in exchanging
information, but meaningful human communication requires understanding.
How can we truly communicate with someone who does not have that same
understanding of right and wrong?
> Writing is a job no less than being a carpenter. All a writer has, at
> the end of the day, is time, energy and visceral material. And right
> now, there's an awful lot going on career wise, and my free time is at
> a premium. You pay for someone's time if you have them consult, or
> write, or research for you, or if you otherwise engage their
> professional services. That is pro forma for every profession on the
> planet...except, it seems, for writing, where they think you're so glad
> to be asked to the ball that you'll go along with being treated
> unprofessionally.
> Pass.
> jms
Teaching also comes to mind. It would seem that certain professions,
which involve creativity or service, have a "kick me" sign stuck on
their backs, and plenty of people have an underused foot.
Conscious or otherwise, could this be some kind of resentful reaction
from people who are not particularly creative or called for public
service? Is it their way of saying "damn you for being more creative than
I am"? Are they saying "if I can't create, I'll steal"?
Can anyone be taught to aspire to be better than they are, or is this
innate and unteachable?
--
20051019 0825
This .sig is not available at the moment. Leave your message after the beep.
Jan
says...
You're missing the point. They asked him to do *new work* on the Superbox.
It's a separate issue from any residuals.
Rob Perkins
> That is pro forma for every profession on the
> planet...except, it seems, for writing, where they think you're so glad
> to be asked to the ball that you'll go along with being treated
> unprofessionally.
Oh, by all means, no.
People who discover that a person is good at repairing computers, for
example, will be asked to repair neighbor's computers. I've had to lay
down rules to prevent members of my Church from harboring expectation of
instant repair services for PC's laced with viruses and spyware. Work
like that eats my day job alive.
(This all goes aside, of course, for situations where I explicitly
volunteer my help. And, yes, very often my recommendation ends with "get
a mac")
Also, there is a societal expectation that doctors and hospitals work
for free, because of the cruel indifference which caused some deaths
because ER's were admitting people only after ability to pay was shown.
Comeuppance doesn't come cheap, but why is the cost amortized onto *my*
doctor bill?
(Not that I'm unwilling to aid the indigent with health care, just that
the current method seems remarkably inefficient.)
Ironically, perhaps, the one time someone took my "get a Mac" advice and
loved it was the time I was helping an oncologist who went to my church.
And he paid me!
Rob
Andrew Swallow
[snip]
>
> The fact they would say such things does not surprise me. What troubles me
> is, they say those things with a straight face, as if it were the most
> natural thing in the world. Those people seem to have the same regard for
> right and wrong that a psychopath has. Is it a genetic defect? Can nurture
> create such aliens? Can healthy human beings really communicate with them?
The other difference is between salaried employees and contractors. In
companies with poor financial controls salaried employees can give each
other work. The recipient is *automatically* paid for the work by top
management via the normal salary system. When a salaried employee tries
to give work to a contractor the employee has to get the payment
authorised by top management. Top management changes from "do not
bother to ask the price" to "negotiate a lower price" mode.
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
> In article <dj5o2h$1jj$1...@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, Andrew Swallow
> says...
>
>>jms...@aol.com wrote:
>>[snip]
>>
>>>To which WB responded that they don't pay people for the honor to be
>>>involved in these DVDs. But he's getting paid, the guy who did the
>>>artwork is getting paid, the only person who's not getting paid is the
>>>guy who made it. So I declined. They replied with ominous words
>>>suggesting that it would be bad if I let the fans down...but I don't
>>>bow down for emotional blackmail.
>>
>>As a scriptwriter and/or producer are you getting residues for each DVD
>>sold?
>>
>>Getting paid 3 times for the same piece of work is rare. Some times you
>>just have to get a bigger second payment.
>>
>>Andrew Swallow
>
>
> You're missing the point. They asked him to do *new work* on the Superbox.
> It's a separate issue from any residuals.
>
> Jan
No I did not; I just looked at it from a side angle.
If JMS gets more residues because he did the extra
work he has been paid for the extra work. The money
just got merged into the second payment (residues)
rather than a separate fee.
The manager preparing the Superbox is obviously not
authorised to pay fees but God may increase the
residues due to increased sales.
In bureaucracies calling a rose by another name
may add extra money to your bank account.
Andrew Swallow
Matt Ion
> jms...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> That is pro forma for every profession on the
>> planet...except, it seems, for writing, where they think you're so glad
>> to be asked to the ball that you'll go along with being treated
>> unprofessionally.
>
>
> Oh, by all means, no.
>
> People who discover that a person is good at repairing computers, for
> example, will be asked to repair neighbor's computers. I've had to lay
> down rules to prevent members of my Church from harboring expectation of
> instant repair services for PC's laced with viruses and spyware. Work
> like that eats my day job alive.
The members of your church shouldn't be visiting so many porn sites ;)
Having worked over 15 years in IT, I too am expected to fix friends' and
family's computers... but always at my convenience and never for free,
even if I'm just offered pizza and bevvies while I'm there. Otherwise a
simple, "Hmmmm, well I'm kinda busy until a week after next July..." is
enough to get the point across :)
> Ironically, perhaps, the one time someone took my "get a Mac" advice and
> loved it was the time I was helping an oncologist who went to my church.
> And he paid me!
As long as he didn't pay you in chemo drugs or something.
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0542-3, 10/19/2005
Tested on: 10/19/2005 10:31:39 AM
Matt Ion
He's not looking for additional residuals, he's talking about getting
paid for the time he spends sitting there working with these "people".
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0542-3, 10/19/2005
Tested on: 10/19/2005 10:33:26 AM
Jan
says...
Looking briefly on JMSnews.com, I found the following regarding payments for the
release of B5 on video. Chances are, the same still applies to the DVDs:
<<From: jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5)
Subject: ATTN JMS: VHS/DVD and residuals
To: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Date: 10/6/2000 8:26:00 AM
>What, if any, money do you and/or the actors see from video sales? IIRC
>this sort of marketing (or lack thereof) revenue really honked off the
>original Star Trek cast. I assume there is some standard contract which
>deals with this stuff now.
Unfortunately, when the videotape biz was just gearing up, our lovely Writers
Guild of America didn't think it would be of much interest, and basically gave
away our rights in this area. I think it's something like one percent of the
net, which comes out to pennies. Literally.
If I were to add up all the money I've gotten off all the shows I've written
that have been releaed on casette or laserdisk, it would be somewhat less than
a grand.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine) >>
Note the word "net". So everybody else who works on the sets gets paid up front
for their work but JMS would have to wait until sales were in, returns were
tracked and as many expenses as possible were charged against them to find out
*if* he gets any extra fees?
To use your own type of anolagy, bullshit by any other name stinks as bad. The
worker is worthy of his hire.
Amy Guskin
(in article <Qrv5f.232564$1i.19407@pd7tw2no>):
What Andrew is saying is, if the new commentary makes more people buy the
DVD, then if JMS benefits from the additional residuals due to those
increased sales, isn't he getting paid for that new work, after a fashion?
To that, my answer is: see my reply about miniscule residuals and wonky
accounting methods.
Amy
Amy Guskin
(in article <dj5uib$5vf$1...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>):
Considering the miniscule residuals paid to writers and actors on DVD sales
(a continuing sore point in Hollywood, although I think it was finally
renegotiated up some smallish amount in the past year) compared to the
humongous take the studios get, and factoring in the formula used to
calculate those residuals (which apparently has all manner of exclusions,
making the miniscule residuals even smaller, and unfairly so), I think the
studios can afford to pop for a salary for any _new_ work done by talent
(writers included in that, of course).
Amy
Amy Guskin
(in article <dj61e...@drn.newsguy.com>):
I think the figures are somewhere around a nickel a copy for writers, and
$0.15 a copy for actors - but that's only actors who are eligible for
residuals, which I assume means speaking parts only. Anybody know if it's a
speaking part of a certain size, like the difference between under-fives,
short term players, recurring, and contract, on soaps?
Amy
Rob Perkins
>> People who discover that a person is good at repairing computers, for
>> example, will be asked to repair neighbor's computers. I've had to lay
>> down rules to prevent members of my Church from harboring expectation
>> of instant repair services for PC's laced with viruses and spyware.
>> Work like that eats my day job alive.
>
>
> The members of your church shouldn't be visiting so many porn sites ;)
That is getting to be a constant refrain from Church leaders. :-|
However, the people I know getting the viruses and spyware aren't
getting them from porn apps. They're getting them from things like Bonzi
Buddy or this or that browser toolbar.
>
> As long as he didn't pay you in chemo drugs or something.
Nope! Cashy money!
Rob
Thunder, Agent '005
> Writing is a job no less than being a carpenter. You pay for someone's time
>if you have them consult, or
> write, or research for you, or if you otherwise engage their
> professional services.
Sounds fair to me. I think it's time studios like WB started waking up
and realizing this. As for Mongoose, if they can't even think up a story
on their own without asking for ideas, that doesn't bode well...
t.k.
Thunder, Agent '005
>
> The fact they would say such things does not surprise me. What troubles me
> is, they say those things with a straight face, as if it were the most
> natural thing in the world.
Mr. Morden?? :)
t.k.
Rob Perkins
Mr. Morden said it with a smile. Until he knew he had you trapped.
Rob
Wendy of NJ
Writers aren't the only ones who are asked for freebies. Musicians are
often in the same boat. Oftentimes, I get treated as "lucky" to be
getting my gas money reimbursed, and table space to sell CDs (which,
of course, is all the compensation I deserve, according to the
festival organizer). Gods help you if you ask to be paid for doing a
concert. They can't afford to pay you, but they'll pay the sound guy
and the lighting guy...
-Wendy
Amy Guskin
(in article <3rnl19F...@individual.net>):
Now I can't get the image out of my head of WB sending Ed Wasser, dressed as
Morden, to JMS's house to deliver this non-payment news. At least then it
would have been an entertaining joke. But I doubt anyone there is creative
enough, or familiar enough with the property, to do something that clever.
:-p
Amy
Chris Adams
>Now I can't get the image out of my head of WB sending Ed Wasser, dressed as
>Morden, to JMS's house to deliver this non-payment news. At least then it
>would have been an entertaining joke. But I doubt anyone there is creative
>enough, or familiar enough with the property, to do something that clever.
Not to mention Ed Wasser probably wouldn't want his head to end up on a
pike as a warning to the next ten generations of studio heads that some
things really do have a price.
--
Chris Adams <cma...@hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
Mox Fulder
[...]
> Now I can't get the image out of my head of WB sending Ed Wasser, dressed as
> Morden, to JMS's house to deliver this non-payment news. At least then it
> would have been an entertaining joke. But I doubt anyone there is creative
> enough, or familiar enough with the property, to do something that clever.
> :-p
Maybe jms should send back one angry Narn with a key.
--
20051019 1515
Mark Alexander Bertenshaw
"Thunder, Agent '005" <dece...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:0Zw5f.240869$tl2.237392@pd7tw3no...
What makes you think that Mongoose can't think up story ideas? Their RPG
stuff seems pretty good, and guess who wrote the introduction to the first
rulebook? Well, it was JMS. I wonder if he got paid for that? It seems to
me that their only sin is of naivety. As for the books being published, I
suppose that depends on the contract that he made with Warners, but I've
never heard of any other show creater have that amount of clout. If Warner
really wanted Mongoose to publish these books, it is likely that he couldn't
stop it. As for Joe's point about the books not being "canon": as the
creater of the series, he has the moral right to decide what is canon. Then
again, if the book is well-written and doesn't contradict anything else,
can't this only be a good thing?
--
Mark Bertenshaw
Kingston upon Thames
UK
Matthew Sprange
> to be paid for my time and work. Then finally, they came back
> with...five hundred bucks per book.
>
> To which I responded, "You have GOT to be kidding me."
>
> I have, subsequently, washed my hands of the Mongoose books. I haven't
> seen anything, don't know what they're doing, so sure as hell it ain't
> canonical.
Hi guys,
Okay, I have a slightly different recollection of events. There was no
silence at first - we had quite a rapid exchange of emails. I never
expected anyone to work on this project for free but I believe I was very
honest when I said I had no idea what your time was _worth_. No idea.
None. Never worked with anyone in your position before. Furthermore, that
offer was not the final one - we offered 10% of the revenue, the same
portion that Warner Brothers gets for the novels.
That is when the silence kicked in - you did not get back to us, did not
discuss it. We could have tried to work something out.
The important thing to remember here is that Mongoose is not Warner
Brothers. We are a small company employing 20 or so people. We cannot
throw money around with abandon on any project, especially as we are limited
to the UK market only (I believe it is Del Ray who have the US licence).
There is no guarantee that a new range of Babylon 5 novels will prove
successful in the UK and, at the end of the day, we have a business to run.
To put things into perspective, if we were to print and sell an entire print
run of, say, 10,000 novels, the profit is only a few thousand pounds after
printing and distribution costs. That is if we sell all 10,000. Sell half
that and we are at a loss. This is before Warner Brothers comes along and
takes their bite, plus any percentage we offered to Mr Straczynski. I must
point out, it is not the profit I have my eyes on with these figures but
whether the project would end up costing more than it would bring in - which
is obviously a huge problem with a business.
I can say that everyone at Mongoose is greatly dedicated to Babylon 5 and,
in our own way, we have been carrying the B5 banner for the past three years
with our games and a range of over 20 sourcebooks. I believe (I may be
wrong) that we have printed more Babylon 5 material than any other
publisher. We take this universe seriously.
I would like to extend an offer to Mr Straczynski to re-open negotiations
and, if there is a way we can find to work together, we would like to move
forwards. We have a lot of very exciting ideas for Babylon 5, across a
variety of media, that we would like to discuss. We very much want to carry
the banner further and I believe we have a lot to offer fans of the series.
You have my email. Please give me a shout.
Matthew Sprange
Mongoose Publishing
jms...@aol.com
Andrew Swallow wrote:
>
> As a scriptwriter and/or producer are you getting residues for each DVD
> sold?
>
> Getting paid 3 times for the same piece of work is rare. Some times you
> just have to get a bigger second payment.
>
As a scriptwriter, my residuals is tied to the WGA's formula for
residuals off DVDs and VHS tapes...which were thrown away a long time
ago, before the market broke...meaning that I get zero off the sales of
the DVDs as a writer.
As a producer, my revenue from the DVDs is tied to the overall profit
of the show, which is still showing $50 million in the red (thanks to
creative accounting), so I get zero off the sales of the DVDs as a
producer.
As a small potted plant, I get even less.
So to answer your question...no, I get nothing off the DVDs. At all.
Even if I were, to engage someone's services to perform a job of work
for you is what it is, and you're doing a different job. You don't say
to a carpenter, "Listen, I paid you to make this chair for me, and now
I want you to make a cabinet for me, for free, since I paid you for the
chair."
But in any event...it's a moot point. I've never received a dime off
the DVDs and likely never will.
jms
Wesley Struebing
<ais...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
Nope. I see it being as heavy-handed and unthinking as possible.
--
Wes Struebing
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Andrew Swallow
[snip]
>
> Note the word "net". So everybody else who works on the sets gets paid up front
> for their work but JMS would have to wait until sales were in, returns were
> tracked and as many expenses as possible were charged against them to find out
> *if* he gets any extra fees?
>
> To use your own type of anolagy, bullshit by any other name stinks as bad. The
> worker is worthy of his hire.
>
> Jan
With residues that tiny I can see why JMS is objecting.
This BBC web page gives the cost of making a DVD.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4330826.stm
[quote]
{snip}
CDs, he says, will cost marginally less.
"Knock-out 10,000 DVDs and you're looking at maybe 34p each; 100,000 at
25p each, half a million at 23p each. So when you get into the millions,
which are what the tabloids sell, it's even less."
[/quote]
(1p = £0.01)
Since DVDs sell for £10 to £15 ($26.48) someone some where is making a
lot of money.
Andrew Swallow
Jo'Asia
> Now I can't get the image out of my head of WB sending Ed Wasser, dressed as
> Morden, to JMS's house to deliver this non-payment news. At least then it
> would have been an entertaining joke. But I doubt anyone there is creative
> enough, or familiar enough with the property, to do something that clever.
> :-p
Not to mention paying Ed Wasser to do it... ;>
Jo'Asia
--
__.-=-. -< Joanna Slupek >----------------------< http://esensja.pl/ >-
--<()> -< joasia @ hell . pl >------< http://bujold.fantastyka.net/ >-
.__.'| -< Better a mutie than a moron!
{Lord Mark Pierre Vorkosigan} >-
Andrew Swallow
[snip]
>
> But in any event...it's a moot point. I've never received a dime off
> the DVDs and likely never will.
>
> jms
>
Without royalties the whole thing is an unethical rip off.
Andrew Swallow
krueg...@hotmail.com
I admit, I was dumb enough to assume years ago that JMS was earning
royalties left, right, and center on B5.
I sincerely hope he never regrets doing B5. Such a monumental effort.
Such a disappointing business reward.
Andrew Swallow
[snip]
>
> As a small potted plant, I get even less.
>
They do not even put you out in the sun.
> So to answer your question...no, I get nothing off the DVDs. At all.
>
> Even if I were, to engage someone's services to perform a job of work
> for you is what it is, and you're doing a different job. You don't say
> to a carpenter, "Listen, I paid you to make this chair for me, and now
> I want you to make a cabinet for me, for free, since I paid you for the
> chair."
If they paid you royalties it would have been. We
paid you to design a chair. We paid you more when
when we filled the auditorium with these chairs. Now
change the design so we can paint them blue and we
will pay you more money.
But since they do not pay residues the whole thing
is nothing more than a fiddle.
I looked up the rules for British writers writing for the BBC.
From the website of the Writers Guild of Britain.
<http://ccgi.writersguild.force9.co.uk/graphics2/PACT_WG_2002.pdf>
Page 23
[quote]
c) Videograms
i) On first release of a Videogram reproducing the script the Writer
shall be paid an advance against royalties of £500. Only one advance
shall be paid per Videogram irrespective of the number of scripts by the
Writer incorporated within the Videogram. The advance shall be on
account of and be deducted from the royalties outlined in ii) below.
ii) The Writer shall receive royalty payments based on Gross Receipts
for Videogram sales as follows:
Sales of Videograms % of Gross Receipts
Up to 30,000 units 1.5%
Over 30,000 units 2.5%
Gross Receipts shall mean all monies paid by the retailer to the
distributor in respect of the distribution of the Videogram less actual
returns and any applicable taxes.
{snip}
[/quote]
Videograms = DVDs and VHS
Maybe the two guilds should talk.
Andrew Swallow
Thunder, Agent '005
> What makes you think that Mongoose can't think up story ideas?
This.
"Mongoose asked me to consult with them ...asked if I could help come up
with some stories for them..."
That doesn't sound promising when they go to Joe and ask him to come up
with some stories for them (and for free!)
t.k.
Amy Guskin
(in article <11ldh3i...@corp.supernews.com>):
> Once upon a time, Amy Guskin <ais...@fjordstone.com> said:
>> Now I can't get the image out of my head of WB sending Ed Wasser, dressed
>> as
>> Morden, to JMS's house to deliver this non-payment news. At least then it
>> would have been an entertaining joke. But I doubt anyone there is creative
>> enough, or familiar enough with the property, to do something that clever.
>
> Not to mention Ed Wasser probably wouldn't want his head to end up on a
> pike as a warning to the next ten generations of studio heads that some
> things really do have a price.<<
BWA-hahahahaha! Okay, this gets Post of the Day, for sure.
Amy
Amy Guskin
(in article <pgkiionqfpr0$.d...@dustpuppy.sloth.hell.pl>):
> Amy Guskin wrote:
>
>> Now I can't get the image out of my head of WB sending Ed Wasser, dressed
>> as
>> Morden, to JMS's house to deliver this non-payment news. At least then it
>> would have been an entertaining joke. But I doubt anyone there is creative
>> enough, or familiar enough with the property, to do something that clever.
>>> -p
>
> Not to mention paying Ed Wasser to do it... ;> <<
Well, no, 'cause WB would think it was enough of an honor simply for them to
ask him to participate in it... :-)
Amy
Amy Guskin
(in article <dj6qrk$46q$1...@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>):
>
> But since they do not pay residues the whole thing
> is nothing more than a fiddle. <<
Is this a peculiarity of American English vs. British English? Because we
actually say "residuals" here.
Amy
Amy Guskin
(in article <HBC5f.233320$oW2.128808@pd7tw1no>):
To be fair, your conclusion is nothing more than an assumption. It could
mean that they simply wanted to do stories that were JMS-approved so as to
stay within shouting distance of canon - not that they don't have any ideas
of their own.
Amy
Carl
<jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1129763371....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> As a producer, my revenue from the DVDs is tied to the overall profit
> of the show, which is still showing $50 million in the red (thanks to
> creative accounting), so I get zero off the sales of the DVDs as a
> producer.
>
> As a small potted plant, I get even less.
So the accountants (who are apparently fiction writers in their own right)
make
money on the DVDs and you don't.
After so many years of this I would have thought that the various guilds and
unions would have found away to make the process more honest.
I'm not a big fan of unions, but this makes a case for some.
Carl
Andrew Swallow
Ah. Is that how you spell it. Personally I prefer royalties.
Andrew Swallow
Jan
>
>
><jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:1129763371....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> As a producer, my revenue from the DVDs is tied to the overall profit
>> of the show, which is still showing $50 million in the red (thanks to
>> creative accounting), so I get zero off the sales of the DVDs as a
>> producer.
>>
>> As a small potted plant, I get even less.
>
>So the accountants (who are apparently fiction writers in their own right)
>make
>money on the DVDs and you don't.
Almost to add insult to injury, the costs of those accountants are (or were)
being charged against the show, too, I'm afraid.
Actually, as an accountant, I can tell you that it's perfectly reasonable and
necessary for expenses incurred by the studio overall to be spread amongst the
individual shows. What I don't get, because I've never seen a set of books for
a studio, is how it can be so everlasting and ongoing (if it actually is).
>After so many years of this I would have thought that the various guilds and
>unions would have found away to make the process more honest.
I'm not sure that it is dishonest, no matter how much I might wish JMS were
getting a cut of the money brought in by the DVDs and other items. It's not
even 'creative accounting' but standard business practice.
Put it this way...JMS has said that B5 cost about $110 million to make. That's
what the *budget* was, though, the controllable expenses, not what it actually
cost. Even though the B5 soundstages weren't on the WB lot, it's still only
fair and reasonable that, being a WB production, a portion of the costs of
running WB should be charged against the show as overhead. That includes such
items as security, storage, office personnel, all those high-paid execs and
*many* other charges from striping the parking lot to loan interest payments to
taxes to paper clips (and yes, even that set burning down in Latvia). *All* of
those charges would need to be distributed among the shows in production because
without the structure of the studio, no shows would get made. Chances are,
that's where the huge deficit occurred starting the first day B5 went into
production.
That's why the difference between a show 'making money each year' by bringing in
more in advertising than the budgeted expenses to make the show can be hugely
different from what shows up on a profit and loss statement.
What I don't know is for how long things can be directly charged against a show
no longer in production. If there are still 'overhead' items being charged
against the show, I'd be kind of surprised. Items such as production costs of
the DVDs would be about all I'd expect any longer with the possible exception of
advertising and sales items. I wouldn't know that without seeing a statement,
if then, since I'm not that familiar with the industry.
Hopefully if any of this contradicts what JMS has seen on his statements, he'll
let us know. At any rate, this concludes the 'more than anybody *ever* wanted
to know about Accounting' portion of tonight's entertainment. ;-)
Jan
--
Here, gathered together in common cause
We agree to recognize this singular truth
and this singular rule:
That we must be kind to one another.
G'Kar (J. Michael Straczynski)
Mox Fulder
[...]
> I admit, I was dumb enough to assume years ago that JMS was earning
> royalties left, right, and center on B5.
> I sincerely hope he never regrets doing B5. Such a monumental effort.
> Such a disappointing business reward.
Although every artist should be properly compensated, and jms certainly
will never be properly compensated for B5, I doubt he did it for the
money. He got to tell his story his way, he knows the effect it had on
millions of people, and that, he can never regret.
--
20051019 2035
Matt Ion
The sad thing is, they'd probably pay Wasser to do the job...
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0542-3, 10/19/2005
Tested on: 10/19/2005 8:47:58 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
Matt Ion
> Even if I were, to engage someone's services to perform a job of work
> for you is what it is, and you're doing a different job. You don't say
> to a carpenter, "Listen, I paid you to make this chair for me, and now
> I want you to make a cabinet for me, for free, since I paid you for the
> chair."
Or more accurately, it would be like the carpenter making a table, and
then being expected to make the chair for free because it would lead to
more use of the table...
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0542-3, 10/19/2005
Tested on: 10/19/2005 8:50:56 PM
Chris Adams
or small potted plants) is treated but:
Once upon a time, <jms...@aol.com> said:
>Even if I were, to engage someone's services to perform a job of work
>for you is what it is, and you're doing a different job. You don't say
>to a carpenter, "Listen, I paid you to make this chair for me, and now
>I want you to make a cabinet for me, for free, since I paid you for the
>chair."
You've never worked for an Internet provider. Calls go like: "Yes, you
host my website. I uploaded my site per your instructions, but it
doesn't really look the way I want. I want you to go in and make it
look better. What? You want to charge me web development time for
that? HOW much!? I'm paying you twenty bucks a month; you can %@!#
well rewrite my entire site to work the way I picture it in my head!"
And even your example of a carpenter; I have a couple of friends that
work in home building, and you'd be amazed at the number of people that
agree on exactly how everything should look and how much it should cost,
and then want everything changed at the last minute at no charge.
jms...@aol.com
krueg...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Andrew Swallow wrote:
> > jms...@aol.com wrote:
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > But in any event...it's a moot point. I've never received a dime off
> > > the DVDs and likely never will.
> > >
>
> Such a disappointing business reward.
No, not at all. I went into this situation with my eyes open...I knew
that I would never see a dime off B5. Doesn't mean I can't tweak them
about it, because it's emblematic of the problem faced by lots of
people in Da Biz, but I regret nothing.
Well, maybe that evening with the two sailors and the taffeta
outfit....
jms
jms...@aol.com
The history of this is...back in the 80s, the WGA had the chance to go
after a percentage of VHS sales, or push for something else (a handful
of magic beans, as I recall)...and they basically gave away the VHS
stuff on the theory that it would never be much of a market.
In the years since then, the video market has exploded, but the formula
has stayed the same, and the studios insisted that they also apply to
DVDs. The Guild should have struck over this a long time ago, but the
last fifteen years or so in particular the Guild leadership has been
remarkably cowardly, and has not done what's necessary to correct this.
(Won't change the B5 situation, because it wouldn't be retroactive.)
Now, I think there's a somewhat bolder bunch of guys who just got in,
and we'll see what they can do with it.
jms
jms...@aol.com
Jan wrote:
>
> Hopefully if any of this contradicts what JMS has seen on his statements, he'll
> let us know. At any rate, this concludes the 'more than anybody *ever* wanted
> to know about Accounting' portion of tonight's entertainment. ;-)
>
Your analysis is essentially correct. WB can take 30% of all B5 income
right off the top as "overhead," and subject the remaining 70% to their
net formula, which is constructed such that if a set on a small movie
burns down in Botswana, they can bill the costs against B5...so that
the series will never, ever show a profit.
I ain't the first in this position, and sadly, I won't be the last.
jms
jms...@aol.com
this...for as much as I may grump about the profit situation, and the
DVDs, the ones who *really* get screwed the most on this are the
actors. Their reoyalty formula is even worse than the WGAs, and when
it comes to making the DVDs...
Back when they were doing the first season or so, WB called me in for a
meeting. Very important, they said. So I go in and sit with them.
"We have a problem," they said. "Andreas and Peter won't do
commentaries or interviews, and Walter doesn't want to let us use his
footage from the documentary."
"Why not?" said I.
"They want to get paid."
"Then pay them," said I.
"That's not our policy," said they.
"Then change it."
You would think I turned to the Pope and said, "Who farted?"
"We can't change our policy, it's our policy."
"Of course you can," I said. "It's not as if Your Policy exists
outside the natural realm, like some kind of Greek perfect ideal. You
made the policy, and you can change it."
"If we pay THEM, then EVERYONE is going to want to get paid."
"And that's bad how?" I asked. "You're putting actors on camera or
behind a mike. Asking them to perform. They should be paid for that."
"Well, we want you to talk to them, tell them it's important to you
that they do this."
"Nope."
"Why not?"
"Because they're right and you're wrong."
"Doug has said he'll talk to them."
"That's not my problem. I won't do it."
"We're asking you as a personal favor. Talk to them."
So I talked to them. I called the actors in question, who said, in
general, "They won't pay me."
"I know. So don't do it."
"You're okay with that?"
"Absolutely."
"So...why are you calling?"
"I promised I'd call, so this is my call, to say good for you."
"Oh."
And that, as they say, was that.
Which is also, incidentally, why Harlan wouldn't do the DVDs.
jms
Amy Guskin
(in article <1129780781.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>):
I assume the pictures will be in volume 15?
Amy
Thunder, Agent '005
>>"Mongoose asked me to consult with them ...asked if I could help come up
>>with some stories for them..."
>>
> To be fair, your conclusion is nothing more than an assumption. It
could
> mean that they simply wanted to do stories that were JMS-approved so as to
> stay within shouting distance of canon - not that they don't have any ideas
> of their own.
Then Joe should've elaborated and made it more obvious that they wanted
him to help keep their stories more canonical. Either possibility is
there from what he said...
t.k.
Amy Guskin
(in article <1129781252.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>):
>
> Jan wrote:
>>
>> Hopefully if any of this contradicts what JMS has seen on his statements,
>> he'll
>> let us know. At any rate, this concludes the 'more than anybody *ever*
>> wanted
>> to know about Accounting' portion of tonight's entertainment. ;-)
>>
>
> Your analysis is essentially correct. WB can take 30% of all B5 income
> right off the top as "overhead," and subject the remaining 70% to their
> net formula, which is constructed such that if a set on a small movie
> burns down in Botswana, they can bill the costs against B5...so that
> the series will never, ever show a profit.<<
Memo to self: send extra kitchen fire extinguisher to Botswana...
Amy Guskin
(in article <6zF5f.235798$oW2.199082@pd7tw1no>):
Yeah, that's exactly what I was saying: either possibility is there. Or any
of a myriad of others. Whatever Joe left out has no bearing on it - what he
_said_ is that they asked if he could help come up with some stories for
them. The way I read that, there are all sorts of reasons they could have
asked that, not necessarily including that they couldn't come up with any
stories on their own.
I'm a songwriter. If I collaborate with somebody, it doesn't mean I've run
out of ideas. There are a whole host of reasons why I'd collaborate with
another songwriter (or lyricist).
Amy
Matthew Vincent
>Actually, as an accountant, I can tell you that it's
>perfectly reasonable and necessary for expenses incurred
>by the studio overall to be spread amongst the individual
>shows. What I don't get, because I've never seen a set
>of books for a studio, is how it can be so everlasting
>and ongoing (if it actually is).
I suspect one part of the problem may be a lack of sufficient
distinction between maintenance and expansion. There may also be an
issue with some expenses being charged more than once, e.g. to two
different shows.
Suppose that a singer and I discuss going into business together, and
end up deciding upon the following arrangement: I will make my basement
available as a small studio, and will buy all the physical equipment
needed to make the songs for the singer's album. The singer will then
be able to borrow my studio and equipment for purposes of creating
_this particular performance of_ the IP (please note my choice of
words).
We decide that a fair arrangement is for the singer to get 70% of the
profits and for me to get the other 30%, since the creator of the IP
should get the most profits but the party who invested some money
should get a share as well. We agree that the singer should own the IP,
and should have sole authority over the creation of derivative works or
any other non-financial aspect of the IP; and that my rights over the
IP should be limited to financial returns from this particular album,
as that's the only aspect I've been involved in. To that end, we agree
that neither of us has the right to remove the album from the market
unless the other agrees, as long as it's still making profit. Also, we
agree that I have the right to ask that derivative works which closely
resemble any of the songs on the album not be made available for a
certain (short) period of time, since this might cut into my profits.
(In other words, my permission is required for this.)
Now, if I were to then decide that I wanted to buy a building somewhere
so I could build and equip a bigger studio, I couldn't take any of my
expenses from this new venture and count them as expenses to the
original album. There's a clear boundary there, and if I want to buy
another studio somewhere else, that's my problem, and the singer has no
contractual obligation to me over it.
When you have a single corporation in charge of multiple projects at
once, these kinds of boundaries become more blurry, and greedy
corporations can profit considerably from this confusion and ambiguity.
However, there IS a fact to the matter of what expenses of WB's are
directly B5 related, what expenses are directly related to other
projects, what expenses apply particularly to more than one project,
and what expenses are general WB expenses. For the latter category,
which is particularly clear-cut, there should be a convention (perhaps
that B5's share of general WB expenses is proportional to B5's own
expenses, i.e. if Show A costs twice as much as Show B, then it has to
also pay twice as much of WB's overall expenses as Show B does).
There needs to be a separate profit and loss account for B5's own
expenses, a separate profit and loss account for general WB expenses,
and then a figure added to B5's expenses once the appropriate
proportion of general WB expenses is determined. That way, WB wouldn't
be able to count general expenses more than once. (What's more, *only*
maintenance, and not expansion, could be counted in WB general expenses
that B5 and other shows had to be responsible for. If WB want to
expand, that's their own problem and their own responsibility, not
anyone else's.)
Also, if two or more parties disagree on a profit and loss account,
there should be a process whereby it's able to be taken up in court or
else in some kind of tribunal or the like. JMS should have the ability
to calculate his own profit and loss account (including by hiring a
private accountant if he so wishes) and then query any differences, and
the ability to take legal action to rectify them if necessary. In fact,
perhaps the accountant responsible for the profit and loss account
should have to be an external contractor (with no conflicts of
interest) rather than a permanent WB employee, and be required to be
registered to a professional organisation with a code of ethics and
huge penalties for wilfully falsifying financial documents. There could
even be safeguards against corporate bribery by making sure there are
penalties that money can't buy your way out of, perhaps including
criminal (rather than just civil) liability. (In fact, fraud on this
scale definitely warrants at least a few years in jail, anyway.)
Some of the above may already partially be the case, I realise.
>I'm not sure that it is dishonest, no matter how much I
>might wish JMS were getting a cut of the money brought
>in by the DVDs and other items. It's not even
>'creative accounting' but standard business practice.
Please note that "dishonest" and "standard business practice" are not
automatically mutually exclusive.
>What I don't know is for how long things can be directly charged
>against a show no longer in production. If there are still
>'overhead' items being charged against the show, I'd be kind of
>surprised. Items such as production costs of the DVDs would be
>about all I'd expect any longer with the possible exception of
>advertising and sales items.
That's a very good point. There should be hardly any expenses, and
profit should make up a high percentage of revenue, for the DVD sales.
>At any rate, this concludes the 'more than anybody *ever* wanted
>to know about Accounting' portion of tonight's entertainment. ;-)
Not at all -- it's an interesting topic. :)
Matthew
Matthew Vincent
>I went into this situation with my eyes open...I knew
>that I would never see a dime off B5. Doesn't mean I
>can't tweak them about it, because it's emblematic of
>the problem faced by lots of people in Da Biz, but
>I regret nothing.
Speaking as a fellow natural person, I can certainly appreciate how you
had strong non-financial reasons for wanting B5 to be produced and thus
that you were prepared to put up with unfair circumstances as a
necessary evil.
I'm very conscious of the fact that I'll probably need to let myself
get violated by a publishing company at least once when I start writing
books. I'm considering that I might even need to hold back on some of
my better ideas/theories/etc. when I first start writing, so that
another party doesn't end up having the rights over books containing
them.
Do you have any advice regarding what writers can do to protect their
rights, both in general and when they first start writing?
Matthew
Jan
jms...@aol.com says...
Oh, no...*not* that little ruffled number?! I keep telling you, ruffles are
*so* out...tsk,tsk...
Matthew Vincent
<snip>
>This is getting annoyingly commonplace. I got an email
>from the Warner Bros. division handling the German DVD
>superbox, for instance, wherein they said, very happily,
>that they were figuring on getting maybe six to ten
>million bucks for this new edition, and would I help
>them to make sure everything was right, to consult with
>them on the design, the packaging, the text, the artwork,
>the docs, a bunch of stuff. So I said, again not
>unreasonably, "And what is WB's standard fee for
>this consultation?"
>
>To which WB responded that they don't pay people
>for the honor to be involved in these DVDs.
Right. The "honour" to be involved in DVDs containing IP that you
created, that's beyond the intellectual ability of most (probably all)
of the suits and stockholders in WB to ever create, that they've
scammed the rights for off you due to their privileged bargaining
position. What an honour. I wonder if Nike tell their third-world
factory workers that it's an honour and a privilege to be able to enter
their great corporation's premises in order to produce shoes and get
paid eight cents per pair.
>But he's getting paid, the guy who did the artwork is getting
>paid, the only person who's not getting paid is the guy who
>made it. So I declined. They replied with ominous words
>suggesting that it would be bad if I let the fans down...but
>I don't bow down for emotional blackmail.
Look, I know you've already made those chairs that we paid you for, but
we need you to make some more furniture for free. The fans are coming
in to watch some movies (yes, we expect to make lots of money from
sales, and we're keeping it all to ourselves, as is our right) and
they'll be really upset if they don't have some more chairs and some
nice comfortable couches to sit on. It really falls on you to build
this furniture for us, for free. Yes, we're making lots of profit here,
but it's not our policy to pay people for extra work like this or else
every carpenter who worked for us would start wanting to be paid for
the extra work we ask them to do.
Matthew
Matthew Vincent
>The fact they would say such things does not surprise
>me. What troubles me is, they say those things with a
>straight face, as if it were the most natural thing
>in the world. Those people seem to have the same
>regard for right and wrong that a psychopath has.
In their movie _The Corporation_, Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore (among
others) ask the question: if a corporation is a person, then what type
of person is it? They compare the behaviour of various corporations to
the ICD-10 and DSM-IV criteria for being a Psychopath.
The version I have in front of me right now is an older one (the
original DSM-IV) but I found this:
301.7 Antisocial Personality Disorder (page 650)
(1) Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors
(I'll use US spellings as per the DSM-IV)
(2) deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or
***conning others for personal profit or pleasure*** (emphasis mine)
(3) impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
(4) irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical
fights or assaults
(5) reckless disregard for safety of self or others
(6) consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to
sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
(7) lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or
rationalizing having hurt, mistreated or stolen from another
You only need to meet a minimum of three of the above seven criteria to
qualify for the diagnosis. I reckon many corporations would qualify,
particularly on items 2, 5 and 7; and arguably item 6 as well. Item 1
probably doesn't apply as much as it should -- because corporate
lobbyists have managed to manipulate certain social norms in their
favour.
Anyway, here's one of the various articles discussing the issues
regarding corporations, personhood and US law:
http://www.iiipublishing.com/afd/pa-resol.htm
Matthew
Matthew Vincent
>Hi guys,
Hi, and welcome to the group.
<snip>
>To put things into perspective, if we were to print and
>sell an entire print run of, say, 10,000 novels, the
>profit is only a few thousand pounds after printing and
>distribution costs. That is if we sell all 10,000.
Please excuse me butting in here, but with these figures, are you sure
you've picked your equilibrium price correctly? If the profit per novel
is less than half a pound, then surely raising the price by (for
argument's sake) 5% or 10% would increase the profit because there'd be
a dramatic increase in markup yet not much of a reduction in sales.
(I'm not meaning to encourage financial selfishness, of course, but you
don't want to cut it too fine.) I do realise there may be other
information I'm not considering here, but I'm just wondering.
You do sound very sincere and it's great to meet others who are
enthusiastic about the B5 universe. My advice when dealing with a
professional whose prices you're likely to have difficulty affording is
to reduce the amount of work to give the person so that there won't be
as much of their time and effort to pay them for. There's a declining
marginal utility function to including material from the show's
creator; it's that provenance thing, i.e. just having something of his
there would increase the value proportionately more than having your
entire wish list fulfilled. The latter may be aiming a bit high, at
least if we're talking about where to start negotiations off from.
Please do excuse my intrusion here and I hope this is of some help. I
wish you the best of luck with your endeavours.
Matthew
Gregory Weston
jms...@aol.com wrote:
> "We're asking you as a personal favor. Talk to them."
Curiosity strikes. Did you, in fact, consider yourself to have a
personal relationship with these people that were asking for a personal
favor? I mean, that's the implication _I_ always got from that phrase,
but it somehow seems on the low side of likely in this case.
--
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.
Wendy of NJ
Eek. THAT brough up a mental picture that either needs a brain wipe,
or REAL pictures.... What color was it?
<running and hiding>
-Wendy
Wendy of NJ
Adams) wrote:
>This is no way meant to belittle how JMS (or other writers, producers,
>or small potted plants) is treated but:
>
>Once upon a time, <jms...@aol.com> said:
>>Even if I were, to engage someone's services to perform a job of work
>>for you is what it is, and you're doing a different job. You don't say
>>to a carpenter, "Listen, I paid you to make this chair for me, and now
>>I want you to make a cabinet for me, for free, since I paid you for the
>>chair."
>
>You've never worked for an Internet provider. Calls go like: "Yes, you
>host my website. I uploaded my site per your instructions, but it
>doesn't really look the way I want. I want you to go in and make it
>look better. What? You want to charge me web development time for
>that? HOW much!? I'm paying you twenty bucks a month; you can %@!#
>well rewrite my entire site to work the way I picture it in my head!"
>
>And even your example of a carpenter; I have a couple of friends that
>work in home building, and you'd be amazed at the number of people that
>agree on exactly how everything should look and how much it should cost,
>and then want everything changed at the last minute at no charge.
Want and get are 2 completely different things. That's what contracts
are for, and why builders are usually called "contractors" -- the
problem is, the WGA has a lousy 'standard' contract with the studios,
and the studios aren't known for their generosity.
And someday, you need to read the story "When Michael Whelan Got Hired
to Paint a Jackson 5 Album Cover" (Whelan is a multi Hugo Award
winning SF artist, if you don't know). He decided to charge 5x over
his normal book rate, and wound up doing 10x more work on it than for
a normal book. (He'd get comments from the art director like
"Michael's glove isn't glowing enough")
I well understand the "over the barrel" feeling one gets when your
client asks for infinite revisions, especially when the revision is a
completely different concept from the initial RFP and proposal. I
think any freelancer has been there at one time or another. The main
thing is to have it only happen ONCE.
Wendy of NJ
<mbvi...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>Mox Fulder wrote:
>
>>The fact they would say such things does not surprise
>>me. What troubles me is, they say those things with a
>>straight face, as if it were the most natural thing
>>in the world. Those people seem to have the same
>>regard for right and wrong that a psychopath has.
>
>In their movie _The Corporation_, Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore (among
>others) ask the question: if a corporation is a person, then what type
>of person is it?
You see, that's the wrong question. At least to me. A corporation
*isn't* a person, and doesn't really behave like a person. It behaves
more like a mob. Because it's a group entity, it can justify any
behavior it chooses, because the group members give tacit approval for
that behavior by their participation.
So while corporations aren't necessarily running around with torches
and pitchforks, they are certainly doing pretty much whatever they
want with impunity. Except for the mitigating factor of governmental
bureaucracy (laws and enforcement of those laws reagrding corporate
behavior). Gods, what a system we have set up!
However, when you compare it to Feudalism, it's marginally better. I
think. Maybe. Well, at least we participate in a shared delusion that
we have some say in what goes on. And we're more comfortable than our
serf-ancestors -- we have more toys, anyway.
> They compare the behaviour of various corporations to
>the ICD-10 and DSM-IV criteria for being a Psychopath.
<g> Well, most mobs are psychopathic...
-Wendy
Jan
Vincent says...
>
>Jan wrote:
>
>>Actually, as an accountant, I can tell you that it's
>>perfectly reasonable and necessary for expenses incurred
>>by the studio overall to be spread amongst the individual
>>shows. What I don't get, because I've never seen a set
>>of books for a studio, is how it can be so everlasting
>>and ongoing (if it actually is).
>
>I suspect one part of the problem may be a lack of sufficient
>distinction between maintenance and expansion. There may also be an
>issue with some expenses being charged more than once, e.g. to two
>different shows.
<snip>
>When you have a single corporation in charge of multiple projects at
>once, these kinds of boundaries become more blurry, and greedy
>corporations can profit considerably from this confusion and ambiguity.
>However, there IS a fact to the matter of what expenses of WB's are
>directly B5 related, what expenses are directly related to other
>projects, what expenses apply particularly to more than one project,
>and what expenses are general WB expenses. For the latter category,
>which is particularly clear-cut, there should be a convention (perhaps
>that B5's share of general WB expenses is proportional to B5's own
>expenses, i.e. if Show A costs twice as much as Show B, then it has to
>also pay twice as much of WB's overall expenses as Show B does).
Pardon the snip but let me explain how it works (IME, in a *much* smaller
corporate entity, mind) as I understand it.
First, some amount of expansion is a perfectly legitimate business/studio
expense. Then, what most likely happens is that, once all expenses are posted,
a formula is used to distribute them among the various shows. This would pretty
much be the last step before the financial statements are finalized and isn't,
pretty much can't be, done in the detail you envision.
Let me give an example from where I work. The Human Resources department
operates all month for the benefit of all of the other departments-some to a
greater extent, some to a lesser. The very last step before we issue the
statements is to distribute those HR expenses to the departments. In our case,
we calculate the percentage of the distribution based on each department's
payroll on the theory that, the larger the payroll, the more use of the HR
department's services are used. It simply wouldn't be cost effective to do it
any other way.
>There needs to be a separate profit and loss account for B5's own
>expenses, a separate profit and loss account for general WB expenses,
>and then a figure added to B5's expenses once the appropriate
>proportion of general WB expenses is determined. That way, WB wouldn't
>be able to count general expenses more than once. (What's more, *only*
>maintenance, and not expansion, could be counted in WB general expenses
>that B5 and other shows had to be responsible for. If WB want to
>expand, that's their own problem and their own responsibility, not
>anyone else's.)
For purposes of the overall company, the very most each show would be is a
separately designated 'department' but yes, what you say is pretty accurate.
And yes, those do each have separate statements that are part of the overall
financial statement.
As for expansion, I think that depends on what you mean. If they decide to
diversify, chances are, a separate company/corporation would be formed. If you
mean an expansion of services available related to making shows, those would be
perfectly legitimate costs to be charged against the shows.
<another snip>
>>I'm not sure that it is dishonest, no matter how much I
>>might wish JMS were getting a cut of the money brought
>>in by the DVDs and other items. It's not even
>>'creative accounting' but standard business practice.
>
>Please note that "dishonest" and "standard business practice" are not
>automatically mutually exclusive.
No, but headlines aside, most accountants go out of their way to maintain the
integrity of the books they keep. And most of the practices have been tested in
various courts over time.
ravend03x
<snip>
> The Guild should have struck over this a long time ago, but the
> last fifteen years or so in particular the Guild leadership has been
> remarkably cowardly, and has not done what's necessary to correct this.
> (Won't change the B5 situation, because it wouldn't be retroactive.)
> Now, I think there's a somewhat bolder bunch of guys who just got in,
> and we'll see what they can do with it.
>
> jms
Maybe JMS could add "activist" to his list of projects. If there is "a
somewhat bolder bunch of guys..." I am sure JMS would qualify as being
bold. In addition, he has the ability to deliver a withering
tongue-lashing from 50 paces.
It's really the worker caste that gets the finger most of the time,
isn't it?
ravend03x
Wendy of NJ wrote:
> >
> >Well, maybe that evening with the two sailors and the taffeta
> >outfit....
> >
> >jms
> >
> Eek. THAT brough up a mental picture that either needs a brain wipe,
> or REAL pictures.... What color was it?
>
> <running and hiding>
>
<covering ears and screwing eyes shut like the see-no-evil characters>
La-La-LA!!!
Kurt Ullman
jms...@aol.com wrote:
>Your analysis is essentially correct. WB can take 30% of all B5 income
>right off the top as "overhead," and subject the remaining 70% to their
>net formula, which is constructed such that if a set on a small movie
>burns down in Botswana, they can bill the costs against B5...so that
>the series will never, ever show a profit.
>
>I ain't the first in this position, and sadly, I won't be the last.
>
If anyone is interested, I have found the published opinions in
Buchwald v Paramount (or PvB, can never remember) to be very
interesting window into Studio Accounting. You can find them at
www.findlaw.com.
--
I wanted to put the old band from High School back together..
But nobody else wanted to march.
Kurt Ullman
jms...@aol.com wrote:
>Well, maybe that evening with the two sailors and the taffeta
>outfit....
>
Of the very few things in my life that I regret, taffeta was
involved in all of them...
Amy Guskin
(in article <1129790117.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
You left out some things, including the fact that you probably paid the
songwriter (I'm assuming, since you're talking about ownership of IP, that
you mean someone who is the writer in addition to being the artist, because
the artist who does not write their songs does not share in the participation
from here) an advance so that they could quit their scut job to have some
time to write and record the album. And don't forget marketing. Oh, yeah -
and I assume you also paid the instrumentalists who are working on the album
with the songwriter. And to manufacture and distribute the recording. And
for any legal fees I might have incurred during the process (securing the
rights to a particular photograph for the album cover, getting contracts
issued to musicians, etc.). I'm sure there's more I could think of when I'm
more awake.
Also, where are you getting the money to pay me that advance? Probably at
least one of your artists is successful, but the others...? Not so much so.
You simply _can't_ take money to pay _everyone's_ advance - to say nothing of
marketing, manufacturing, upkeep on the recording equipment, etc. etc. - from
the ONE successful artist's coffers. You'll have to spread it around.
Unless you are independently wealthy and are doing this from your own
pockets, out of the goodness of your heart. But your accountants would
probably advise you not to do that, because this is a _business_.
I am certainly not trying to defend the commercial music industry, however, I
am saying that you might be taking an overly simplistic view of the layout of
the playing field.
>> Now, if I were to then decide that I wanted to buy a building somewhere
> so I could build and equip a bigger studio, I couldn't take any of my
> expenses from this new venture and count them as expenses to the
> original album. There's a clear boundary there, and if I want to buy
> another studio somewhere else, that's my problem, and the singer has no
> contractual obligation to me over it. <<
That's what _you're_ saying for your hypothetical example, but the songwriter
has whatever contractual obligation you signed them to, including the fact
that maybe you asked them to pick up groceries for your grandmother once a
week, since you were going to be busy running that new basement studio of
yours.
Anything can go into a contract, assuming you can get someone to sign it.
>> (What's more, *only*
> maintenance, and not expansion, could be counted in WB general expenses
> that B5 and other shows had to be responsible for. If WB want to
> expand, that's their own problem and their own responsibility, not
> anyone else's.) <<
Yes, and the next time you're up there to discuss whether or not they're
going to finance your next television or film project, you should mention
that to them, just so it's clear. :-p Unfortunately, the way it works is:
as long as they own the ball, they make the rules.
>> Also, if two or more parties disagree on a profit and loss account,
> there should be a process whereby it's able to be taken up in court or
> else in some kind of tribunal or the like. JMS should have the ability
> to calculate his own profit and loss account (including by hiring a
> private accountant if he so wishes) and then query any differences, and
> the ability to take legal action to rectify them if necessary. In fact,
> perhaps the accountant responsible for the profit and loss account
> should have to be an external contractor (with no conflicts of
> interest) rather than a permanent WB employee, and be required to be
> registered to a professional organisation with a code of ethics and
> huge penalties for wilfully falsifying financial documents. There could
> even be safeguards against corporate bribery by making sure there are
> penalties that money can't buy your way out of, perhaps including
> criminal (rather than just civil) liability. (In fact, fraud on this
> scale definitely warrants at least a few years in jail, anyway.) <<
...
Sorry, I was laughing so hard I fell down!
Amy
Amy Guskin
(in article <1129796767.2...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
> Mox Fulder wrote:
>
>> The fact they would say such things does not surprise
>> me. What troubles me is, they say those things with a
>> straight face, as if it were the most natural thing
>> in the world. Those people seem to have the same
>> regard for right and wrong that a psychopath has.
>
> In their movie _The Corporation_, Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore (among
> others) ask the question: if a corporation is a person, then what type
> of person is it? They compare the behaviour of various corporations to
> the ICD-10 and DSM-IV criteria for being a Psychopath.<<
Ha, that's great! I tried to rent "The Corporation" the other night, but it
was out. It's on my list, though - and I think it just got bumped up a
position or two.
Amy
grace
"ravend03x" <rki...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129812541.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I don't know for certain about the other guilds but I do know that SAG
attempted to get the residual formula changed in regards to DVDs in the last
round of contract negotiations--- they were not successful -- the studios
are very protective of that particular revenue stream.
Grace
Neil B
> jms...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Writing is a job no less than being a carpenter. You pay for someone's
>> time
>
> >if you have them consult, or
>
>> write, or research for you, or if you otherwise engage their
>> professional services.
>
>
> Sounds fair to me. I think it's time studios like WB started waking up
> and realizing this. As for Mongoose, if they can't even think up a story
> on their own without asking for ideas, that doesn't bode well...
I'm a little surprised to hear this of Mongoose who have a generally
excellent reputation in gaming circles here in the UK. *shrug*
Neil B
Captain Infinity
>
>Andrew Swallow wrote:
>
>>
>> As a scriptwriter and/or producer are you getting residues for each DVD
>> sold?
>>
>> Getting paid 3 times for the same piece of work is rare. Some times you
>> just have to get a bigger second payment.
>>
>
>As a scriptwriter, my residuals is tied to the WGA's formula for
>residuals off DVDs and VHS tapes...which were thrown away a long time
>ago, before the market broke...meaning that I get zero off the sales of
>the DVDs as a writer.
>
>As a producer, my revenue from the DVDs is tied to the overall profit
>of the show, which is still showing $50 million in the red (thanks to
>creative accounting), so I get zero off the sales of the DVDs as a
>producer.
>
>As a small potted plant, I get even less.
>
>So to answer your question...no, I get nothing off the DVDs. At all.
>
>Even if I were, to engage someone's services to perform a job of work
>for you is what it is, and you're doing a different job. You don't say
>to a carpenter, "Listen, I paid you to make this chair for me, and now
>I want you to make a cabinet for me, for free, since I paid you for the
>chair."
>
>But in any event...it's a moot point. I've never received a dime off
>the DVDs and likely never will.
>
>jms
Man, that sucks. Hey, I bought 4 of the 5 DVD sets. Send me your
address and I'll send you 4 dimes.
**
Captain Infinity
Matthew Sprange
>
> This.
>
> "Mongoose asked me to consult with them ...asked if I could help come up
> with some stories for them..."
Not to rock the boat but that was not what we asked for. The stories, we
already have. . .
Matthew Sprange
Mongoose Publishing
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com
Amy Guskin
(in article <1129812541.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>):
> jms...@aol.com wrote:
> <snip>
>> The Guild should have struck over this a long time ago, but the
>> last fifteen years or so in particular the Guild leadership has been
>> remarkably cowardly, and has not done what's necessary to correct this.
>> (Won't change the B5 situation, because it wouldn't be retroactive.)
>> Now, I think there's a somewhat bolder bunch of guys who just got in,
>> and we'll see what they can do with it.
>>
>> jms
>
> Maybe JMS could add "activist" to his list of projects. If there is "a
> somewhat bolder bunch of guys..." I am sure JMS would qualify as being
> bold. In addition, he has the ability to deliver a withering
> tongue-lashing from 50 paces. <<
Yes, but he's talking about the WGA leadership - my strong hunch is that JMS
doesn't have time to do board work like that.
Amy
Mox Fulder
[...]
> You see, that's the wrong question. At least to me. A corporation
> *isn't* a person, and doesn't really behave like a person. It behaves
> more like a mob. Because it's a group entity, it can justify any
> behavior it chooses, because the group members give tacit approval for
> that behavior by their participation.
Are you saying that people in groups/mobs don't have any responsibility
for their behavior? What would that say about government?
> So while corporations aren't necessarily running around with torches
> and pitchforks, they are certainly doing pretty much whatever they
> want with impunity. Except for the mitigating factor of governmental
> bureaucracy (laws and enforcement of those laws reagrding corporate
> behavior). Gods, what a system we have set up!
I think the problem is not so much the system in general, but the
specific lack of accountability. Both individuals and groups will behave
with very little restraint when there are no consequences for their
behavior. In the case or large corporations, we are becoming complacent in
believing and acting as if there is nothing or little we can do, as
individuals, when they do us wrong.
> However, when you compare it to Feudalism, it's marginally better. I
> think. Maybe. Well, at least we participate in a shared delusion that
> we have some say in what goes on. And we're more comfortable than our
> serf-ancestors -- we have more toys, anyway.
We do have a say, but it's much easier and convenient to pretend we don't.
That way, we don't have to do anything about it. Maybe we'll mumble and
complain. Taking responsibility requires a lot of energy, time and
committment. Yes, we are comfortable and complacent playing with our
toys, confusing this with happiness.
One of the philosophies of B5 is that we are creating the future, so what
kind of future do we want? We don't vote because politicians are corrupt
and the system is seriously flawed. But what does that leave us? A
government elected by a minority. We are letting others create the
future, not to mention the present.
> > They compare the behaviour of various corporations to
> >the ICD-10 and DSM-IV criteria for being a Psychopath.
> <g> Well, most mobs are psychopathic...
I have trouble with the concept of a psychopathic group or organization. A
psychopath is not simply an antisocial person, or the glamorized TV/movie
version. The defining characteristic is the lack of conscience. Thus, the
lack of remorse and freedom to defraud and hurt others. They are not
stupid, and it's not as if they didn't know the difference between right
and wrong--they simply live outside that system. They are master
manipulators and you can rarely see them coming. What you see is their
path of destruction, after the fact.
How does this apply to a group? Groups lack a conscience, because they
also lack any kind of thinking process. I don't see a mob planning and
scheming like a psychopath does, because people in mobs are not exactly
thinking. They are moving with the flow. btw, that does not mean they are
not responsible--they can choose to not go with the flow. Just like a
drunk driver can choose to not drive.
--
20051020 0830
This .sig is not available at the moment. Leave your message after the beep.
Andrew Swallow
[snip]
>
> Do you have any advice regarding what writers can do to protect their
> rights, both in general and when they first start writing?
Do you need the advance? Or are you willing to wait
for the residuals to come in?
Can you get the publisher to go for a big distribution
and reprint quickly?
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
> In article <1129790117.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Matthew
> Vincent says...
[snip]
>
> Pardon the snip but let me explain how it works (IME, in a *much* smaller
> corporate entity, mind) as I understand it.
>
> First, some amount of expansion is a perfectly legitimate business/studio
> expense. Then, what most likely happens is that, once all expenses are posted,
> a formula is used to distribute them among the various shows. This would pretty
> much be the last step before the financial statements are finalized and isn't,
> pretty much can't be, done in the detail you envision.
I suspect that there is no fair share formula. All of
the overhead costs probably get allocated to the profitable
shows. Unprofitable shows do not cover their own costs and
have to be subsidised.
The biggest overhead costs are likely to be movies
that bombed. I wonder how much caviare at five star
hotels in exotic locations Babylon 5 paid for?
Note Babylon 5 itself never left the lot.
Andrew Swallow
Jeremy Billones
<jms...@aol.com> wrote:
> The Guild should have struck over this a long time ago, but the
>last fifteen years or so in particular the Guild leadership has been
>remarkably cowardly, and has not done what's necessary to correct this.
> (Won't change the B5 situation, because it wouldn't be retroactive.)
>Now, I think there's a somewhat bolder bunch of guys who just got in,
>and we'll see what they can do with it.
Eh. I'm an NHL fan. Strikes aren't always the right answer :)
--
Jeremy Billones
"It's a place used the world over where people can come together to bitch about
movies and share pornography together." This is a much more sophisticated idea
of the Net than we find in high-tech cyberthrillers, where the Net is a place
that makes your computer beep a lot. - Roger Ebert on "Jay & Silent Bob..."
Jan
says...
>
>Jan wrote:
>
>> In article <1129790117.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Matthew
>> Vincent says...
>[snip]
>
>>
>> Pardon the snip but let me explain how it works (IME, in a *much* smaller
>> corporate entity, mind) as I understand it.
>>
>> First, some amount of expansion is a perfectly legitimate business/studio
>>expense. Then, what most likely happens is that, once all expenses are posted,
>>a formula is used to distribute them among the various shows. This would pretty
>>much be the last step before the financial statements are finalized and isn't,
>> pretty much can't be, done in the detail you envision.
>
>I suspect that there is no fair share formula. All of
>the overhead costs probably get allocated to the profitable
>shows. Unprofitable shows do not cover their own costs and
>have to be subsidised.
Except that's not how accounting works. There's nobody sitting around sticking
pins into accounts saying "Okay, I'll charge that party and the resulting legal
fees for the doberman assaulting the pomeranian to *this* show." If that were
the case then somebody's challenge would have been won long ago. The same
procedures have to be followed month in and month out, year in and year out.
>
>The biggest overhead costs are likely to be movies
>that bombed. I wonder how much caviare at five star
>hotels in exotic locations Babylon 5 paid for?
>Note Babylon 5 itself never left the lot.
>
>Andrew Swallow
>
Babylon 5 was never *on* the lot in the first place...it hung out at hot tub
factories.
Rob Perkins
> No, not at all. I went into this situation with my eyes open...I knew
> that I would never see a dime off B5.
Did you at least draw a producer's salary from Babylonian, or writer's
remuneration for the first production of the scripts themselves?
Rob
Amy Guskin
(in article <SUM5f.3925$4O1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
> In article <1129781252.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> jms...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Your analysis is essentially correct. WB can take 30% of all B5 income
>> right off the top as "overhead," and subject the remaining 70% to their
>> net formula, which is constructed such that if a set on a small movie
>> burns down in Botswana, they can bill the costs against B5...so that
>> the series will never, ever show a profit.
>>
>> I ain't the first in this position, and sadly, I won't be the last.
>>
> If anyone is interested, I have found the published opinions in
> Buchwald v Paramount (or PvB, can never remember) to be very
> interesting window into Studio Accounting. You can find them at
> www.findlaw.com.<<
Yeah, but remember that this was nearly twenty years ago - some things have
changed since then - and that the basis for this case was mainly about the
theft of Buchwald's intellectual property (specifically his treatment, which
he'd submitted to them some years before, and which they turned into the
Eddie Murphy film "Coming to America").
Of course, when the studio had to open the books in connection with this
case, many interesting things were learned...
Amy
Matt Ion
> In article <1129780781.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> jms...@aol.com says...
>
>>
>>krueg...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>>
>>>>jms...@aol.com wrote:
>>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>>But in any event...it's a moot point. I've never received a dime off
>>>>>the DVDs and likely never will.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>I sincerely hope he never regrets doing B5. Such a monumental effort.
>>>Such a disappointing business reward.
>>
>>No, not at all. I went into this situation with my eyes open...I knew
>>that I would never see a dime off B5. Doesn't mean I can't tweak them
>>about it, because it's emblematic of the problem faced by lots of
>>people in Da Biz, but I regret nothing.
>>
>>Well, maybe that evening with the two sailors and the taffeta
>>outfit....
>>
>>jms
>
>
> Oh, no...*not* that little ruffled number?! I keep telling you, ruffles are
> *so* out...tsk,tsk...
That's right Joe... didn't you get the memo? Garters are the new ruffles!
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0542-4, 10/20/2005
Tested on: 10/20/2005 10:52:40 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
Thunder, Agent '005
> I'm very conscious of the fact that I'll probably need to let myself
> get violated by a publishing company at least once when I start writing
> books.
Are you planning to start doing books soon? Always interested when
people say stuff like that... be sure to eventually announce it here
if/when you do so we can all buy a copy. :)
t.k.
Matt Ion
> In article <1129781131.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>The Guild should have struck over this a long time ago, but the
>>last fifteen years or so in particular the Guild leadership has been
>>remarkably cowardly, and has not done what's necessary to correct this.
>>(Won't change the B5 situation, because it wouldn't be retroactive.)
>>Now, I think there's a somewhat bolder bunch of guys who just got in,
>>and we'll see what they can do with it.
>
>
> Eh. I'm an NHL fan. Strikes aren't always the right answer :)
Don't get me started on strikes. If I was King of BC right now I'd
abolish pubic-sector unions in a moment <grumble grumble>
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0542-4, 10/20/2005
Tested on: 10/20/2005 1:29:29 PM
jms...@aol.com
KoshN wrote:
> > No, not at all. I went into this situation with my eyes open...I knew
> > that I would never see a dime off B5.
> > jms
>
> Was that also true of Crusade (the episodes that were made)? Does that
> apply to any future B5 universe TV show, or say a continuation of
> Crusade (if anyone of are ever lucky enough to win the Powerball or
> MegaMillions, and back it)?
>
Crusade was made as an extension of the B5 deal, so the answer is yes.
(In fact, because it was a first year/new show, there was an actual
*cut* in fees.) By contrast, the first show I did after B5 paid over
three times what I earned on B5.
jms
Andrew Swallow
> In article <dj8g4v$gk5$1...@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, Andrew Swallow
> says...
>
>>Jan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <1129790117.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Matthew
>>>Vincent says...
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>
>>>Pardon the snip but let me explain how it works (IME, in a *much* smaller
>>>corporate entity, mind) as I understand it.
>>>
>>>First, some amount of expansion is a perfectly legitimate business/studio
>>>expense. Then, what most likely happens is that, once all expenses are posted,
>>>a formula is used to distribute them among the various shows. This would pretty
>>>much be the last step before the financial statements are finalized and isn't,
>>>pretty much can't be, done in the detail you envision.
>>
>>I suspect that there is no fair share formula. All of
>>the overhead costs probably get allocated to the profitable
>>shows. Unprofitable shows do not cover their own costs and
>>have to be subsidised.
>
>
> Except that's not how accounting works. There's nobody sitting around sticking
> pins into accounts saying "Okay, I'll charge that party and the resulting legal
> fees for the doberman assaulting the pomeranian to *this* show." If that were
> the case then somebody's challenge would have been won long ago. The same
> procedures have to be followed month in and month out, year in and year out.
>
They are not using a direct assignment but an indirect
assignment of costs. If a business wishes to avoid
bankruptcy then all expenditure has to be covered by
sales. The losses on the shows that that spent more
than they earned have to be transferred to other sources
of income. In Hollywood that is shows that made a
production profit.
If the law requires the cost transfer process to be
applied to all shows just keep repeating the transfers
until all the costs have been covered by profitable
shows. The fiction can be maintained by simply not
sending a debt collector to shows that bombed.
>
>>The biggest overhead costs are likely to be movies
>>that bombed. I wonder how much caviare at five star
>>hotels in exotic locations Babylon 5 paid for?
>>Note Babylon 5 itself never left the lot.
>>
>>Andrew Swallow
>>
>
>
> Babylon 5 was never *on* the lot in the first place...it hung out at hot tub
> factories.
The hot lot. ;)
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
[snip]
> And right
> now, there's an awful lot going on career wise, and my free time is at
> a premium.
[snip]
This line suggests that there is going to be some good news soon.
Andrew Swallow
Ian Galbraith
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 08:26:32 +0000 (UTC), "Matthew Vincent"
> <mbvi...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
[snip]
>>In their movie _The Corporation_, Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore (among
>>others) ask the question: if a corporation is a person, then what type
>>of person is it?
> You see, that's the wrong question. At least to me. A corporation
> *isn't* a person, and doesn't really behave like a person. It behaves
> more like a mob. Because it's a group entity, it can justify any
> behavior it chooses, because the group members give tacit approval for
> that behavior by their participation.
Yeah but the point is under western law a corporation essentially is a
person, something that should change IMHO.
[snip]
--
You Can't Stop The Signal
pa...@harper.net
>to NOT buy the superbox to show their displeasure with WB's treatment
>of their (for lack of a better word) hero.
It would be a very dangerous assumption indeed to paint B5 fans as all
having the same (or any, for that matter) "Hero".
I am a B5 fan, and I can assure you the person in question is no hero
of mine. I know I am far from alone in that view as well.
Paul.
Stefan
[Mongoose Publishing]
> At first, silence. As if they were stunned that I would actually ask
> to be paid for my time and work. Then finally, they came back
> with...five hundred bucks per book.
> To which I responded, "You have GOT to be kidding me."
If I'm not totally wrong Mongoose is a more Fanish-like Publishing
Company where I wouldn't expect big budgets at all.
And I naively think about a compromise. Say some smaller workload
for some more bucks.
[WB - German "Superbox"]
> This is getting annoyingly commonplace. I got an email from the Warner
> Bros. division handling the German DVD superbox, for instance, wherein
> they said, very happily, that they were figuring on getting maybe six
> to ten million bucks for this new edition, and would I help them to
> make sure everything was right, to consult with them on the design, the
> packaging, the text, the artwork, the docs, a bunch of stuff. So I
> said, again not unreasonably, "And what is WB's standard fee for this
> consultation?"
> To which WB responded that they don't pay people for the honor to be
> involved in these DVDs. But he's getting paid, the guy who did the
> artwork is getting paid, the only person who's not getting paid is the
> guy who made it. So I declined. They replied with ominous words
> suggesting that it would be bad if I let the fans down...but I don't
> bow down for emotional blackmail.
> Writing is a job no less than being a carpenter. All a writer has, at
> the end of the day, is time, energy and visceral material. And right
> now, there's an awful lot going on career wise, and my free time is at
> a premium. You pay for someone's time if you have them consult, or
> write, or research for you, or if you otherwise engage their
> professional services. That is pro forma for every profession on the
> planet...except, it seems, for writing, where they think you're so glad
> to be asked to the ball that you'll go along with being treated
> unprofessionally.
That's another story.
Full ACK when you say that's all new work: doing comments, revisit
texts
(Box Booklet), check canon and so one.
It's nothing else doing new artwork, design the box.
I can't imagine not to remunerate for such work.
WB behave stingy. Bad. Poor. :-(
I'm wondering if the Fans couldn't demonstrate WB what they think
about.
Stefan
Weekly B5-DVD-Rankings at:
http://hometown.aol.com/redstephen4/myhomepage/babylon5.html
--
Oct-15-2005: 10th jubilee - DE.REC.SF.BABYLON5.MISC