This volume examines the development of film and the film industry during the 1970s and the political and economic background that influenced it.

This book explores the different factors that can influence a new movie’s prospects at the box office. Looking at factors such as the production budget, distribution model, genre, stars and audience reactions of films, Gunter asks how such aspects may reduce the uncertainties of success so common in the movie industry. The reader is taken on a journey through filmmaking factors that, research suggests, impact box office performance. While box office revenues represent only part of a movie’s earning potential, Gunter highlights how theatrical performances remain central to what the movie business is about. The chapters illustrate how ticket sales are largely influenced by the production budget but also cultural differences and new movie platforms.

The central theme of this book is that an economic framework--incorporating such concepts as information asymmetry, moral hazard, and adaptation to changed circumstances--is appropriate for contract interpretation, analyzing contract disputes, and developing contract doctrine. The value of the approach is demonstrated through the close analysis of major contract cases. In many of the cases, had the court (and the litigators) understood the economic context, the analysis and results would have been very different. Topics and some representative cases include consideration (Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff Gordon), interpretation (Bloor v. Falstaff and Columbia Nitrogen v. Royster), remedies (Campbell v. Wentz, Tongish v. Thomas, and Parker v. Twentieth Century Fox), and excuse (Alcoa v. Essex).

It's pretty broadly recognized that Hollywood movies contain patterns of bias, but it's not just people of color or women who are hurt by this. Many groups within America's multicultural society have complained over the years about negative and stereotypical portrayals of their own group members in motion pictures produced or released through the Hollywood-based studios. Yet, as an expert on the U.S. film industry points out, such complaints have had little impact on consistent patterns of bias in movies. This book takes a broader look at the nature of negative and stereotypical movie portrayals and tracks patterns of such one-sided depictions over a longer period time. As a result, the patterns of bias — and the source the problem — become more clear. The problem appears be that most of the people who have green-light authority in the U.S. film industry — for either the production and/or distribution of a motion picture — share a common ethnic/religious/cultural background. Thus, the stories of their cohort and those of all other ethnic, religious and/or cultural groups (whose members seldom achieve positions of power Hollywood) are being filtered through the cultural sensibilities of a single group. John Cones suggests that the solution could lie in increasing diversity at the highest levels in the U.S. film industry. This work grew out of the observed frustration of film industry critics who have pointed out examples of bias and stereotyping in specific movies over the years only to be rebuffed by the simplistic studio arguments that such films reflect the real world and that moviegoers vote with their pocket books. It can be shown that there is a consistent pattern to the choices Hollywood studio executives make with respect to the movies produced and released and the specific content of those movies, and it becomes obvious that Hollywood is selectively portraying reality. Movie goers only have limited options among all of the possibilities that could be portrayed on the silver screen. This book differs from other studies touching on bias in motion pictures. Most such books focus on the treatment of a single ethnic, religious, cultural, racial or other readily identifiable interest group, but this study attempts to provide an overview and to identify patterns over time. When the patterns of bias in motion picture content are sufficiently demonstrated and documented, it becomes easier to identify the source of the bias and to explain why such bias exists.

This dictionary is an aid to anyone involved in seeking to finance a feature film project, especially independents. It covers terms used in film production and distribution, marketing, accounting, insurance, securities, corporate structures and general financial arenas. All of the principal forms of feature film finance are covered, including studio/distributors, production companies, lending institutions, co-financing, pre-sales, grants, foreign and passive investor financing involving the sale of a security.

First published in 1875 and read by more than eight million people, this nondenominational book has a 119-year history of healing and inspiration. To attract a new audience, this time-honored message of healing has a powerful new cover, easy-to-read page layout, and word index. Named one of "75 Books by Women Whose Words Have Changed the World".

Hollywood movies are famous for promoting negative stereotypes of all kinds, especially against minorities, women, Southerners, and Christians. To what extent are biographical films selected for production according to certain biases, conscious or unconscious, among the Hollywood elite? An expert on the U.S. film industry gives readers brief synopses of Hollywood biopics produced and/ or released from 1912 through 1994. This survey provides the basis for discussion and analysis. Tracking these one-sided depictions over a longer period of time, the patterns of bias - and the source of the problem - become more clear. The problem appears to be that most of the people who have green-light authority in the U.S. film industry - for either the production and/or distribution of a motion picture - share a common ethnic/religious/cultural background. Thus, the stories of their own cohort and those of all other ethnic, religious and/or cultural groups (whose members seldom achieve positions of power in Hollywood) are being filtered through the cultural sensibilities of a single group. John Cones suggests that the solution could lie in increasing diversity at the highest levels in the U.S. film industry.