HOLLYWOOD STOCK EXCHANGE
THE ENTERTAINMENT MARKET
THE ENTERTAINMENT MARKET
But the number of films making $5 million or less is probably the same. The cap is not just to limit the top, it's also to lessen the fall. {nm}
Is it time to raise the H$250M cap when calculating TAGs?? Rationale inside... Nov 17, 10:34
Furthermore... Nov 17, 10:53
Umm, HPOT7 will be the 6th movie this year if it holds at it's current price... not the first. Nov 17, 11:03
Therefore, a cap is better than no attachment. {nm} Nov 17, 11:45
No, a cap arbitrarily decides the max worth of an actor or director. Examples... Nov 17, 11:52
I can agree to that point... but that is not an argument against adjusting the cap... Nov 17, 13:42
Good luck differentiating between lead, supporting and cameo. {nm} Nov 17, 13:43
WORD. {nm} Nov 17, 16:49
Like determine the roles and % isn't arbitrary. {nm} Nov 18, 11:41
Your proposal has multliple arbitrary rules vs. the current system's one ,arbitrary according to you, rule. {nm} Nov 18, 13:04
Even with DRADC, people are going to see "Harry Potter", not DRADC. He's not gonna bring $250M to a non-Potter film. {nm} Nov 17, 13:56
The counter to that argument is that the studio could have replaced DRADC and gotten another Harry Potter at any point {nm} Nov 18, 11:54
Yes, see James Bond, HULK... {nm} Nov 18, 13:01
But the number of films making $5 million or less is probably the same. The cap is not just to limit the top, it's also to lessen the fall. Nov 17, 11:16
Why worry about the fall... Nov 17, 11:27
I mean 250/5 {nm} Nov 17, 11:46
He's not being penalized... HE CHOSE to make the lesser movie. Actors sometimes chose NOT to be in the biggest flick {nm} Nov 17, 11:53
a little historical perspective Nov 17, 11:45
Thanks for the perspective... all i am really arguing is that the caps should be increased slightly to reduce inacurracy {nm} Nov 17, 11:59
You're looking to make more H$, not "accuracy". {nm} Nov 17, 12:21
The only reason would be making more money now is because things aren't accurate now. Why won't you want to be accurate? {nm} Nov 17, 12:25
Better wording - Only reason would make more money now is because things weren't done accurately before. {nm} Nov 17, 12:27
Of course... the POINT of the game is to make more H$. But ... Nov 17, 12:36
err, should have said... Daniel Radcliffs TAG is only worth 88% of it's true value {nm} Nov 17, 12:37
As I pointed out, once you get above $250M, it's the benefit of special effects. {nm} Nov 17, 12:58
So the Blind Side, Meet the Fockers, and the Passion of the Christ were all driven by Special effects? Nov 17, 13:07
They will always be outliers, which is what the cap is for. {nm} Nov 17, 13:17
For PASON, if you believe, absolutely, That IS the mystery is it not? {nm} Nov 17, 13:21
Titanic was 100% a 'special effect movie'; cardboard cutout characters, predictable plot; all about the effects Nov 17, 13:58
Example: SBULL's next adjust... her TAG will be H$1.00 less than it should be. Nov 17, 12:57
I'll live with $1 difference. {nm} Nov 17, 13:05
Why should we have to consistently be wrong for all movies abouve H$250... of which there will be more!!! {nm} Nov 17, 13:17
I've never understood why after being delisted, a movie's gross continues to count toward a StarBond's TAG Nov 17, 11:30
This solution also seems more fair. See my Sandra Bullock example in the first post {nm} Nov 17, 11:32
It's a bonus incentive to hold a StarBond beyond the adjust. {nm} Nov 17, 11:35
The added box office is counted on the next adjust. {nm} Nov 17, 11:42
But that adjust only depends on the next film and the sixth film (the one being dropped from TAG) Nov 17, 11:46
In that case, the additional box office would lessen the fall. {nm} Nov 17, 12:07
The additional box office added after the movie is delisted has nothing to do with the rise/fall afterwards Nov 17, 12:19
No, because ultimately a StarBond would cash out at TAG due to inactivity. {nm} Nov 17, 11:48
It's just one way that a StarBond retains value, not saying it's the absolute reason. {nm} Nov 17, 12:14
You know it's not random. {nm} Nov 17, 12:09
Really? there are bonds out there that are more than 3 years past the last activity... why haven't they delisted ? {nm} Nov 17, 12:18
So when are StarBonds cashed out due to inactivity? {nm} Nov 17, 12:23
The guideline is after 3 years from their last film. Cashouts happen every few months so it's not exactly 3 years. Nov 17, 12:34
So the reason why say Frankie Muniz and Illeana Douglas haven't cashed out yet is . . . . ? Nov 17, 12:47
They were attached to films that just went STV recently. {nm} Nov 17, 12:55
If a StarBond was still attached to a listed MST, he's not eligible to be delisted as inactive. {nm} Nov 17, 13:04
FMUNI was detatched from MYSYR in Sept. 09... again... why wasn't he de-listed this year - at any point {nm} Nov 17, 13:35
Sep 13, 2010. {nm} Nov 17, 13:39
The best example for counting post adjust box is MBFGW....should it count for 23.58 or 241.44 Nov 17, 13:31
If it is raised it should be going forward and not retro active {nm} Nov 17, 13:32
This was one of the most interesting threads I've read here this year... thanks :) {nm} Nov 18, 21:08