M: I: III-Tom’s back

For the same reason that the Philadelphia Philharmonic doesn't equip the entire orchestra with kazoos, and great painters don't fob off paint-by-numbers. Filmmakers are still artists, and even most studio heads still view their craft as an art as much as a business. The point I was trying to make is that box office receipts aren't as significant of a factor in measuring a film's success as they once were. They don't even constitute the majority of a given film's revenue: Only about a third typically, and that being the case, it is, as I at least intended to convey, not the ultimate measure of whether or not a film is successful in the last analysis. Most made for TV movies these days don't come close to the viewership of a modestly successful major motion picture, so there are still financial incentives behind Hollywood productions as opposed to "ripped from the headlines," cheaped out TV movies. (not to mention artistic freedom, i.e. less stringent censorship).

"John Travolta NEEDS the lifting power of a 747 these days to get him off the ground." Is he that fat? Or do you mean that his career is going so badly?

The remark was meant to be aimed at his weight, but it is probably equally applicable to his career.

Its hard to tell what sales will be, but I can virtually guarantee you that it will do well in rentals. Things are almost reaching the point where studios don't particularly care how movies do in their theatrical run anymore. In fact, quite a few of the major studios are looking into the possible benefits of making new releases available on Pay Per View immediately upon release. I wouldn't be surprised if we are seeing that with some frequency within a year or two. And I'm not referring here to "direct to video" disasters that the studio already has flushed. They are seriously looking into this strategy for major releases.

And:"...its an excuse for a mother of a barbeque." I have never heard that expression before. What does it mean?

Its a mean spirited reference to the clearly apparent fact that neither John Travolta, Kristie Alley or some of the other more prominent members of Scientology have missed a whole lot of meals lately. But in this case, I have no personal problem with taking a cheap shot. If I have to listen to their nutty ramblings about a pyramid scheme religion, I don't feel too bad about implying that John Travolta NEEDS the lifting power of a 747 these days to get him off the ground.

Probably, yes. These days, about 65% of the revenue for movies comes from DVD sales and rentals, and broadcast revenues. Merchandise tie-ins can also bring in a load of cash, although that probably won't figure in significantly for MI-III. So far as I know, there isn't a MI-III Happy Meal.

Tom's latest venture most likely won't drown anyone in green ink, but by the time all is said and done, it'll make enough to buy a few meals, even  for John Travolta and Kristie Alley. Scientology isn't a religion...its an excuse for a mother of a barbeque.

Phillip reminds me of another Hoffman, Dustin, who always gives a good performance no matter how bad the movie is. (i.e. Ishtar, Sleepers, Outbreak, Mad City).

I'm the same way. I don't judge a person's movies from his off screen antics. But one bad performance and I'll call you on it! (i.e. Anthony Hopkins in Alexander)