hat means
sold videos likely to mostly be G and PG (i.e. the much-vaunted "family"
entertainment). etb
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 10:52 PM
> To: [EMAIL P
Maybe the average G movie makes three times as much as the average R movie.
I wonder if we need to think about this on the margin. If a studio makes one
more G movie, it might bring in less than the next R movie. I really don't
know.
And some directors might only be able to make good R movie
As Ananda notes there are hundreds of PG movies, so I don't think Ebert
is correct. DeVany and Wallis's paper is available on DeVany's web page
http://aris.ss.uci.edu/mbs/personnel/devany/devany.html
Alex
--
Dr. Alexander Tabarrok
Vice President and Director of Research
The Independent Institu
fabio guillermo rojas wrote:
So it's not that G movies aren't profitable - it's
that you have
one superior firm and other studios go into other kinds of
movies.
-fabio
That may be, but NB Medved is talking about not just cartoon G-rated movies
but G's and PG's (and the latter outnumber the former
> Medved has previously argued in his 1992 book:
> "the typical "PG" film generates nearly three times the revenue of the
> typical R" bloodbath or shocker, then the industry's insistence on
> cranking out more than four times as many "R" titles must be seen as an
> irrational and irresponsible h
In today's Wall Street Journal, Michael Medved claims that Al Gore's
latest crusade against Hollywood poses no threat to the First
Amendment, because Gore isn't serious about regulating and is taking huge
campaign contributions from Hollywood. But what does the theory of
regulation say about this
