COMIC STORES 2023: 'IT'S NEARLY 2024 AND I'M MORE THAN CONCERNED' 4 4

[Bosco685]

On 11/23/2023 at 4:50 PM, ttfitz said:

You apparently missed the bolded part below when I first responded:

Not at all. I read everything you posted just fine. It just seemed you were getting more invested in the topic, so would have interest to read the book and watch the Fantastic Four documentary.

I guess you wouldn't. 

[Bosco685]

On 11/23/2023 at 4:52 PM, ttfitz said:

That's what it sounded like to me - going only off of what was said here and was not disputed.

Then you may want to read the details that were included without any individual influence from here to avoid bias either way.

On 11/22/2023 at 8:40 AM, Bosco685 said:

Look at a film like The Fantastic Four (1994). It was created just so producer Bernd Eichinger could keep his option on the film rights, with no plans to really release it. He gave Roger Corman $1 Million to make the film, and three (3) weeks to shoot it.

The Real Reason 1994's Fantastic Four Was Never Released

All for the sake of later on making a better movie by at least throwing something together to retain the rights. Including wasting the time of the director, crew and actors without a care how this impacted their time and careers.

Studio sabotage is a reality. Along with Hollywood accounting practices to make a movie look successful or not. Corporations when it comes to movie studios play these games often. Sorry to be the bearer of such real news.

The German producer knew his option was about to expire, and scrambled to create a low-budget film to work around that contractual hurdle. Yet in the end the director, his crew and cast put their heart into this film knowing it would be low-budget Yet they wanted to make it come together the best they could. A breakout movie to make each actor stand out due to their contributions.

You don't even have to watch the entire video. Just the first 10 minutes tells you everything. I'm not sure if I would clink glasses to celebrate the scheme made someone money. But that's just me. Again, the dirty side of Hollywood.

[DC#]

Sometimes if you just hop to the last page of a thread you wonder if perhaps you misread the title of the thread…..

That being said it is almost always interesting.  

[Prince Namor]

On 11/24/2023 at 4:52 AM, ttfitz said:

That's what it sounded like to me - going only off of what was said here and was not disputed.

There's a tremendous amount of cognitive dissonance that goes on in the world. People read or see something that fits their narrative and regardless of later facts coming to light or more information, they refuse to go against what they originally believed.

Even IF Eichinger is lying and they never had plans to release it, Avi Arad of Marvel Studios consistently is quoted as saying HE bought the film back and destroyed it, so that no one could see it. 

But which makes more sense?... Eichinger creating the film just to shelve it and retain the rights OR Eichinger creating a film and then deciding "the movie was there, (so) we wanted to release it."

Especially since, you'd already run trailers for it - on both released videos as well as at the theaters - meaning you'd already SPENT money to promote it. You don't do that for a movie you're not planning to release. 

See (from wikipedia):

A 1993 magazine article gave a tentative release date of Labor Day weekend 1993. During that summer, trailers ran in theaters and on the video release of Corman's Carnosaur and Little Miss Millions. The cast members hired a publicist, at their own expense, to help promote the film at a clips-screening at the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles and at the San Diego Comic-Con International, and the film appeared as a cover story on an issue of Film Threat magazine. By this time, the world premiere was announced to take place at the Mall of America in Bloomington, Minnesota, on January 19, 1994, with proceeds from the event earmarked for the charities Ronald McDonald House and Children's Miracle Network.

Suddenly, the premiere was halted, the actors received a cease and desist order on all promotion from the producers, and the studio confiscated the negatives. Eichinger then informed Sassone that the film would not be released. Speculation arose that the film had never been intended for release, but had gone into production solely as a way for Eichinger to retain rights to the characters; Stan Lee said in 2005 that this was indeed the case, insisting, "That movie was never supposed to be shown to anybody," and adding that the cast and crew had been left unaware. Corman and Eichinger dismissed Lee's claims, with the former stating, "We had a contract to release it, and I had to be bought out of that contract" by Eichinger. Eichinger called Lee's version of events "definitely not true. It was not our [original] intention to make a B movie, that's for sure, but when the movie was there, we wanted to release it." He said future Marvel Studios founder Avi Arad, at this point, in 1993, a Marvel executive,

...calls me up and says, "Listen, I think what you did was great, it shows your enthusiasm for the movie and the property, and ... I understand that you have invested so-and-much, and Roger has invested so-and-much. Let's do a deal." Because he really didn't like the idea that a small movie was coming out and maybe ruining the franchise.... So he says to me that he wants to give me back the money that we spent on the movie and that we should not release it.

Arad recalled in 2002 that while on a trip to Puerto Rico in 1993, a fan noticing Arad's Fantastic Four shirt expressed excitement over the film's upcoming premiere, of which Arad said he was unaware. Concerned how the low-budget film might cheapen the brand, he said he purchased the film "for a couple of million dollars in cash" and, not having seen it, ordered all prints destroyed, in order to prevent its release.

Edited November 24, 2023 by Prince Namor

[Buzzetta]

On 11/23/2023 at 9:19 PM, Prince Namor said:

There's a tremendous amount of cognitive dissonance that goes on in the world. People read or see something that fits their narrative and regardless of later facts coming to light or more information, they refuse to go against what they originally believed.

Even IF Eichinger is lying and they never had plans to release it, Avi Arad of Marvel Studios consistently is quoted as saying HE bought the film back and destroyed it, so that no one could see it. 

But which makes more sense?... Eichinger creating the film just to shelve it and retain the rights OR Eichinger creating a film and then deciding "the movie was there, (so) we wanted to release it."

Especially since, you'd already run trailers for it - on both released videos as well as at the theaters - meaning you'd already SPENT money to promote it. You don't do that for a movie you're not planning to release. 

See (from wikipedia):

A 1993 magazine article gave a tentative release date of Labor Day weekend 1993. During that summer, trailers ran in theaters and on the video release of Corman's Carnosaur and Little Miss Millions. The cast members hired a publicist, at their own expense, to help promote the film at a clips-screening at the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles and at the San Diego Comic-Con International, and the film appeared as a cover story on an issue of Film Threat magazine. By this time, the world premiere was announced to take place at the Mall of America in Bloomington, Minnesota, on January 19, 1994, with proceeds from the event earmarked for the charities Ronald McDonald House and Children's Miracle Network.

Suddenly, the premiere was halted, the actors received a cease and desist order on all promotion from the producers, and the studio confiscated the negatives. Eichinger then informed Sassone that the film would not be released. Speculation arose that the film had never been intended for release, but had gone into production solely as a way for Eichinger to retain rights to the characters; Stan Lee said in 2005 that this was indeed the case, insisting, "That movie was never supposed to be shown to anybody," and adding that the cast and crew had been left unaware. Corman and Eichinger dismissed Lee's claims, with the former stating, "We had a contract to release it, and I had to be bought out of that contract" by Eichinger. Eichinger called Lee's version of events "definitely not true. It was not our [original] intention to make a B movie, that's for sure, but when the movie was there, we wanted to release it." He said future Marvel Studios founder Avi Arad, at this point, in 1993, a Marvel executive,

...calls me up and says, "Listen, I think what you did was great, it shows your enthusiasm for the movie and the property, and ... I understand that you have invested so-and-much, and Roger has invested so-and-much. Let's do a deal." Because he really didn't like the idea that a small movie was coming out and maybe ruining the franchise.... So he says to me that he wants to give me back the money that we spent on the movie and that we should not release it.

Arad recalled in 2002 that while on a trip to Puerto Rico in 1993, a fan noticing Arad's Fantastic Four shirt expressed excitement over the film's upcoming premiere, of which Arad said he was unaware. Concerned how the low-budget film might cheapen the brand, he said he purchased the film "for a couple of million dollars in cash" and, not having seen it, ordered all prints destroyed, in order to prevent its release.

Here is the movie in full for anyone that wants to view it at the end of my long winded post.   

I searched around and if those places are to be believed, then Wikipedia is correct in that the film rights were optioned to Eichinger for around $250,000.  The question then becomes whether or not a $1 million dollar budget is reasonable for a film containing characters of this caliber given the superhero films of the time period and against the success of Batman that gives the other studios pause to divert more money into higher budgets for their own superhero movies. 

I think the problem in regard to the intent of the FF film is the budget it was afforded.  There is the question as to whether it was "of quality" in comparison to the superhero films of the time and provided a budget to be released.  DC really shakes things up during this time period with the budget provided for Burton's Batman and the success of that movie made all the studios take notice.  Prior to Batman anything considered a superhero movie (outside of the DC Warner Superman productions) do not seem to be breaching $25 million budget. Buckaroo Banzai (1984) clocks in at $17 million and Masters of the Universe (1987) was greenlit at $22 million dollars.  

By the time of Superman IV, the superhero treatment is not doing well at the box office, so WB is going to gamble on Batman.  Batman was afforded a much higher budget of $30 million that quickly balloons to $48 million when Burton gets started on his treatment in 1986. Consider that Superman IV (1987) was given a budget of $17 million and Superman III (1983) is given a budget of around $39 million and we see that WB has a considerable amount of confidence in Batman as their previous venture into Superman did not end up well to say it politely.   

After the success of Batman, films like The Rocketeer and The Shadow are each given budgets in the $30-40 million dollar range presumably in response to the success of Burton's Batman and trying to match the success on a quality movie.   The Crow is given a budget of $23 million for a 1994 release.  Judge Dredd might be the highest profile due to Stallone's involvement which they greenlight at a budget of $85-90 million.  Then comes Blade.  Let's not forget the Batman sequels. Batman definitely changes things.   By the time of the Fantastic Four's intended release, the two Burton Batman films brought in around $700,000,000 against a budget of around a combined $90 to $120 million for the two films.   

So what can the Cormon film be compared to?

I am guessing the only thing to compare it to are non-DC movies that actually had releases at around the immediate time period.  DC had the funding and successful track record of Superman while the other properties did not.  The Punisher spent a significant amount to showcase Ivan Drago Dolph Lundgren who was still famous from his appearance in Rocky IV.

• Captain America 1990 - Budget $3 million (according to Wikipedia)
• The Punisher 1989 - Budget $9 million (according to Wikipedia)

So the Cormon budget of $1 million for a 1994 superhero movie does sound confusing given that Batman showed that the public would show up to the theaters if you give them something to see.  

The question comes down to whether or not anyone truly believed a film with what was still a known property like the Fantastic Four could actually be made for $1,000,000 and be successful. 

@Bosco685 you have more movie magic research at your disposal so if anything is off feel free to correct please. 

 

 

Edited November 24, 2023 by Buzzetta

[VintageComics]

On 11/23/2023 at 7:30 PM, DC# said:

Sometimes if you just hop to the last page of a thread you wonder if perhaps you misread the title of the thread…..

That being said it is almost always interesting.  

The conversation is actually on point. You just need to pay attention.

Some people (not you, but detractors) are unable to follow along a conversation. They just want 'splosions and girls in tights and their world will be OK, but real discussion and problem solving takes time and communication. 

[VintageComics]

On 11/23/2023 at 11:51 PM, Buzzetta said:

Here is the movie in full for anyone that wants to view it at the end of my long winded post.   

I searched around and if those places are to be believed, then Wikipedia is correct in that the film rights were optioned to Eichinger for around $250,000.  The question then becomes whether or not a $1 million dollar budget is reasonable for a film containing characters of this caliber given the superhero films of the time period and against the success of Batman that gives the other studios pause to divert more money into higher budgets for their own superhero movies. 

I think the problem in regard to the intent of the FF film is the budget it was afforded.  There is the question as to whether it was "of quality" in comparison to the superhero films of the time and provided a budget to be released.  DC really shakes things up during this time period with the budget provided for Burton's Batman and the success of that movie made all the studios take notice.  Prior to Batman anything considered a superhero movie (outside of the DC Warner Superman productions) do not seem to be breaching $25 million budget. Buckaroo Banzai (1984) clocks in at $17 million and Masters of the Universe (1987) was greenlit at $22 million dollars.  

By the time of Superman IV, the superhero treatment is not doing well at the box office, so WB is going to gamble on Batman.  Batman was afforded a much higher budget of $30 million that quickly balloons to $48 million when Burton gets started on his treatment in 1986. Consider that Superman IV (1987) was given a budget of $17 million and Superman III (1983) is given a budget of around $39 million and we see that WB has a considerable amount of confidence in Batman as their previous venture into Superman did not end up well to say it politely.   

After the success of Batman, films like The Rocketeer and The Shadow are each given budgets in the $30-40 million dollar range presumably in response to the success of Burton's Batman and trying to match the success on a quality movie.   The Crow is given a budget of $23 million for a 1994 release.  Judge Dredd might be the highest profile due to Stallone's involvement which they greenlight at a budget of $85-90 million.  Then comes Blade.  Let's not forget the Batman sequels. Batman definitely changes things.   By the time of the Fantastic Four's intended release, the two Burton Batman films brought in around $700,000,000 against a budget of around a combined $90 to $120 million for the two films.   

So what can the Cormon film be compared to?

I am guessing the only thing to compare it to are non-DC movies that actually had releases at around the immediate time period.  DC had the funding and successful track record of Superman while the other properties did not.  The Punisher spent a significant amount to showcase Ivan Drago Dolph Lundgren who was still famous from his appearance in Rocky IV.

• Captain America 1990 - Budget $3 million (according to Wikipedia)
• The Punisher 1989 - Budget $9 million (according to Wikipedia)

So the Cormon budget of $1 million for a 1994 superhero movie does sound confusing given that Batman showed that the public would show up to the theaters if you give them something to see.  

The question comes down to whether or not anyone truly believed a film with what was still a known property like the Fantastic Four could actually be made for $1,000,000 and be successful. 

@Bosco685 you have more movie magic research at your disposal so if anything is off feel free to correct please. 

 

 

Discussing the Corman FF film in this way is nothing more than a red herring and a misdirection from the original point. 

The original point was, and still is, that executives and corporations have goals that differ from the artists. 

The John Carter debacle is a different can of worms than the Corman FF debacle, but it is the same point - that big money plays with people's lives and cares nothing about the little people and if it serves their purpose, they will burn these people and move onto the next pawns. 

It is an established fact of history that John Carter was burned in this way as fodder. It's been known and accepted for a decade by the general public, and STILL nobody HERE will admit that John Carter was purposefully sabotaged ruining the careers of many involved, especially the lead star. 

Instead, we've misdirected the conversation to a red herring to avoid the main point and we're comparing the budget of a terrible FF movie to a terrible Cap movie.

[Buzzetta]

On 11/24/2023 at 12:28 AM, VintageComics said:

Discussing the Corman FF film in this way is nothing more than a red herring and a misdirection from the original point. 

The original point was, and still is, that executives and corporations have goals that differ from the artists. 

The John Carter debacle is a different can of worms than the Corman FF debacle, but it is the same point - that big money plays with people's lives and cares nothing about the little people and if it serves their purpose, they will burn these people and move onto the next pawns. 

It is an established fact of history that John Carter was burned in this way as fodder. It's been known and accepted for a decade by the general public, and STILL nobody HERE will admit that John Carter was purposefully sabotaged ruining the careers of many involved, especially the lead star. 

Instead, we've misdirected the conversation to a red herring to avoid the main point and we're comparing the budget of a terrible FF movie to a terrible Cap movie.

Sit back and breathe and focus that I am solely commenting on the FF movie and am not even bringing John Carter into the discussion. 

I am not even insinuating anything about John Carter.

[VintageComics]

On 11/24/2023 at 12:30 AM, Buzzetta said:

Sit back and breathe and focus that I am solely commenting on the FF movie and am not even bringing John Carter into the discussion. 

I am not even insinuating anything about John Carter.

Please don't tell me to breathe and focus. 

I'm saying the entire FF Corman discussion is a misdirection which was latched onto when in fact it's a total red herring. 

Ignore the fact that I quoted you because I simply did that because it was the last post and you will see that the rest of my point stands. 

[VintageComics]

Quite literally, some are trying to argue the opposite of the truth: That Big Corporations care about little people and that they care about the artists. 

What kind of a Bizarro world are we in now?

[Buzzetta]

On 11/24/2023 at 12:36 AM, VintageComics said:

Please don't tell me to breathe and focus. 

I'm saying the entire FF Corman discussion is a misdirection which was latched onto when in fact it's a total red herring. 

Ignore the fact that I quoted you because I simply did that because it was the last post and you will see that the rest of my point stands. 

Please inhale, then exhale, and pay attention ?

Much as the thread went from comic stores to John Carter, when the mentioning of the Corman FF entered into play, I raised the intent of the production of that particular film in regard to the allotted budget of that particular film.  I did not feel the need to make a new thread to comment on that one post.   

Hope this clarifies things for you. 

[Buzzetta]

On 11/24/2023 at 12:43 AM, VintageComics said:

Quite literally, some are trying to argue the opposite of the truth: That Big Corporations care about little people and that they care about the artists. 

What kind of a Bizarro world are we in now?

"care about little people" ?  I assume that was a typo and should have read "care little about people".  (Unless it is "care about little people" and then that leads to an entirely different conversation.)

Big business cares about profit as they should.  There are few businesses (smaller) that do have outside interests where profit is the not the destination but the tool to create the means to serve their mission or interests.  

 

Edited November 24, 2023 by Buzzetta

[Bosco685]

On 11/23/2023 at 11:51 PM, Buzzetta said:

Spoiler

Here is the movie in full for anyone that wants to view it at the end of my long winded post.   

I searched around and if those places are to be believed, then Wikipedia is correct in that the film rights were optioned to Eichinger for around $250,000.  The question then becomes whether or not a $1 million dollar budget is reasonable for a film containing characters of this caliber given the superhero films of the time period and against the success of Batman that gives the other studios pause to divert more money into higher budgets for their own superhero movies. 

I think the problem in regard to the intent of the FF film is the budget it was afforded. 

Spoiler

There is the question as to whether it was "of quality" in comparison to the superhero films of the time and provided a budget to be released.  DC really shakes things up during this time period with the budget provided for Burton's Batman and the success of that movie made all the studios take notice.  Prior to Batman anything considered a superhero movie (outside of the DC Warner Superman productions) do not seem to be breaching $25 million budget. Buckaroo Banzai (1984) clocks in at $17 million and Masters of the Universe (1987) was greenlit at $22 million dollars.  

By the time of Superman IV, the superhero treatment is not doing well at the box office, so WB is going to gamble on Batman.  Batman was afforded a much higher budget of $30 million that quickly balloons to $48 million when Burton gets started on his treatment in 1986. Consider that Superman IV (1987) was given a budget of $17 million and Superman III (1983) is given a budget of around $39 million and we see that WB has a considerable amount of confidence in Batman as their previous venture into Superman did not end up well to say it politely.   

After the success of Batman, films like The Rocketeer and The Shadow are each given budgets in the $30-40 million dollar range presumably in response to the success of Burton's Batman and trying to match the success on a quality movie.   The Crow is given a budget of $23 million for a 1994 release.  Judge Dredd might be the highest profile due to Stallone's involvement which they greenlight at a budget of $85-90 million.  Then comes Blade.  Let's not forget the Batman sequels. Batman definitely changes things.   By the time of the Fantastic Four's intended release, the two Burton Batman films brought in around $700,000,000 against a budget of around a combined $90 to $120 million for the two films.   

So what can the Cormon film be compared to?

I am guessing the only thing to compare it to are non-DC movies that actually had releases at around the immediate time period.  DC had the funding and successful track record of Superman while the other properties did not.  The Punisher spent a significant amount to showcase Ivan Drago Dolph Lundgren who was still famous from his appearance in Rocky IV.

• Captain America 1990 - Budget $3 million (according to Wikipedia)
• The Punisher 1989 - Budget $9 million (according to Wikipedia)

So the Cormon budget of $1 million for a 1994 superhero movie does sound confusing given that Batman showed that the public would show up to the theaters if you give them something to see.  

The question comes down to whether or not anyone truly believed a film with what was still a known property like the Fantastic Four could actually be made for $1,000,000 and be successful. 

@Bosco685 you have more movie magic research at your disposal so if anything is off feel free to correct please. 

 

 

Hey there Buzz. Hope your Thanksgiving was relaxing.

Nope. The budget size is not the point. That's actually another topic in itself, but proves out the original intent: was this established truly for theatrical release or a placehold so as to achieve the bigger film dream.

It was the seedy side of Hollywood where sincere intent to release a product was misrepresented leading to the hiring of cast and crew to film something not intended to be taken seriously by producers (again - see the Doomed documentary). 

By 55:00 where in 1993 the plan was to conduct an early screening at The Mall of America, and that's when reality set in that there was actually a deal with Fox Studios to create the real film. And that Chris Columbus as a super-fan had plans to create a big budget production. 

By 1:03:28 Oley Sassone (the director) was called by Bernd Eichinger to explain what really took place. Which floored him what took place.

So whether a $264M-$307M or $1M production budget film, egos and greed kick in playing with other people's money and hopes. And this can be hidden when done behind the scenes of companies operating in the multi-billion dollars (reminder: Disney did $42.3 Billion in 2012). So $300M is .7% in the grand scheme which shareholders wouldn't even flinch at when Disney had made 3% more revenue year-over-year. Not going to register a reaction if it is part of a positive revenue wash in the end.

That's the point. Hollywood involves a dirty side without a care for fan desires nor contributing to a company's bottom line if it can detract from someone else's credentials so as to give them a leg up in the overall system.

[Prince Namor]

On 11/24/2023 at 12:43 PM, VintageComics said:

Quite literally, some are trying to argue the opposite of the truth: That Big Corporations care about little people and that they care about the artists. 

What kind of a Bizarro world are we in now?

Quite literally who is arguing that point?

[Prince Namor]

On 11/24/2023 at 3:41 PM, Bosco685 said:

Hey there Buzz. Hope your Thanksgiving was relaxing.

Nope. The budget size is not the point. That's actually another topic in itself, but proves out the original intent: was this established truly for theatrical release or a placehold so as to achieve the bigger film dream.

It was the seedy side of Hollywood where sincere intent to release a product was misrepresented leading to the hiring of cast and crew to film something not intended to be taken seriously by producers (again - see the Doomed documentary). 

By 55:00 where in 1993 the plan was to conduct an early screening at The Mall of America, and that's when reality set in that there was actually a deal with Fox Studios to create the real film. And that Chris Columbus as a super-fan had plans to create a big budget production. 

By 1:03:28 Oley Sassone (the director) was called by Bernd Eichinger to explain what really took place. Which floored him what took place.

So whether a $264M-$307M or $1M production budget film, egos and greed kick in playing with other people's money and hopes. And this can be hidden when done behind the scenes of companies operating in the multi-billion dollars (reminder: Disney did $42.3 Billion in 2012). So $300M is .7% in the grand scheme which shareholders wouldn't even flinch at when Disney had made 3% more revenue year-over-year. Not going to register a reaction if it is part of a positive revenue wash in the end.

That's the point. Hollywood involves a dirty side without a care for fan desires nor contributing to a company's bottom line if it can detract from someone else's credentials so as to give them a leg up in the overall system.

So you're saying they began promoting a movie they weren't planning to release? They spent more money, even though they didn't plan to release it?

[Bosco685]

On 11/24/2023 at 3:44 AM, Prince Namor said:

So you're saying they began promoting a movie they weren't planning to release? They spent more money, even though they didn't plan to release it?

You're saying John Carter as a movie failed because the director of the film ignored the company that invested up to $300M in it and that company allowed that to happen?

See how that works? As that was one of your key arguments.

[Prince Namor]

On 11/24/2023 at 3:47 PM, Bosco685 said:

You're saying John Carter as a movie failed because the director of the film ignored the company that invested up to $300M in it and that company allowed that to happen?

See how that works? As that was one of your key arguments.

No. I showed what people who were there said, and how they felt it played a part in it. 
 

That has nothing to do with my question. Which is ok, because it was rhetorical. 

[Bosco685]

On 11/24/2023 at 3:57 AM, Prince Namor said:

No. I showed what people who were there said, and how they felt it played a part in it. 
 

That has nothing to do with my question. Which is ok, because it was rhetorical. 

People who were there from their opinions. Yet you think shareholders would be okay with Disney stating it invested up to $300M in a film but was shy to perform oversight as a representative of investor funds contributing to this production?

No response necessary. Naturally, no publicly traded company would allow this to happen. Regulators would get involved in such matters for truth in securities misrepresentation.

[Prince Namor]

On 11/24/2023 at 4:08 PM, Bosco685 said:

People who were there from their opinions. Yet you think shareholders would be okay with Disney stating it invested up to $300M in a film but was shy to perform oversight as a representative of investor funds contributing to this production?

No response necessary. Naturally, no publicly traded company would allow this to happen. Regulators would get involved in such matters for truth in securities misrepresentation.

HBO let their creators make those decisions. It's worked out great for them. 

[Bosco685]

On 11/24/2023 at 4:10 AM, Prince Namor said:

HBO let their creators make those decisions. It's worked out great for them. 

HBO is in the theatrical release business leading to box office results which then leads to profit expectations? I think we are mixing business topics now.