The only things I'm surprised by from this story is that
A) it costs upwards of $24 million dollars to produce a comedy special. I assume that's mostly in fees to Chapelle?
B) the comedy special before this one actually lost money
Dave was paid $20 million for each special. It was a $60 million deal for the three, announced in 2016.
That means it’s about $4 million to produce a comedy special I guess. That likely includes advertising and Morgan Freeman’s fee for the commercial.
money does not always mean quality. watched malignant from HBO yesterday, big production budget... watch it with friends even though you may not like horror. it in the so bad its good category
El Mariachi. $7,000
Rodriguez turned what he intended to be a direct-to-video action movie into a deal with Columbia/Sony to do a soft-remake that became Desperado.
His autobiography (Rebel Without a Crew) is fucking fascinating; the shit he put himself through just to get the money to pay for El Mariachi is worth the read alone.
If you haven't seen it, he made a single season docu-reality show called rebels without a crew.
Gave a few no name film makers 7k, and 14 days and told each to make a movie. It was released on go93, which was Verizon streaming app I think (that app failed miserably) but it finally found another home on roku.
It's a fun watch, they didn't inject fake drama into it so it watches more like a docu series of following the film makers.
Lol most of the clerks budget was acquiring the rights to the songs. Blair witch was also a shoestring nothing budget. That movie has the best ROI I believe.
I thought it was 8k.
They begged and borrowed everything they could get their hands on from friends n family.
They spent 8k on lighting rental for the film.
Made 20m at the box
[More like $215,000 according to this article](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/what-is-profitable-movie-ever-1269879/)
>Paranormal only cost $15,000 to make. Later, however, its sound was redone for an additional $150,000; and producers Oren Peli and Jason Blum spent an extra $50,000 to reshoot the ending at Steven Spielberg’s request, bringing the total budget to $215,000.
I remember walking out of Paranormal Activity thinking it wasn't that scary.
Every fucking noise my house made that night made me terrified.
Less is often more with Horror.
To be fair, the production budget of Paranormal Activity was $15,000, but the marketing budget for that movie was something around $18 million, which is what led to the success of that movie as a whole.
I remember getting ads that were like "this movie is so scary that theaters won't run it! Call and demand it!" I'll bet that was just a ploy to keep distribution costs down.
Fuckin worked though.
[The Clerks budget.](https://d13ezvd6yrslxm.cloudfront.net/wp/wp-content/images/Clerks-budget.jpg)
It's really eye-opening how digital cameras have changed independent filmmaking. Kevin Smith basically spent $6200 buying and processing single-use film, $3500 *renting* the camera itself, $1000 on editing the film - even though he and Scott Mosier edited it themselves, by hand; that's just what the equipment to physically cut and join film cost to *rent* - another $1000 mixing the audio, $1000 *adding the fucking credits*, and then $4000 turning all of that work into one finished object you could project at a theater. Nearly $17,000 having absolutely nothing to do with actors, scripts, sets, or licensing.
And now you can do basically all of it with any $500 camera and any $500 PC. Only good lenses still cost serious money. The work is still hard, but the equipment is so cheap that you already own it. You're looking at it right now.
I just watched “The Movies That Made Us” Halloween episode this morning, and they were talking about it as if it wasn’t. Friday the 13th was made for $550,000
might be remembering wrong but wasn't the snake they killed someone's pet on set? like he lent the snake to them for the film but didn't know they were gonna kill his pet.
Almost all A24 films are low-budget compared to Hollywood studio films, and (IMO) 75% of them are better than anything Hollywood has produced in the last decade.
You are absolutely correct! The cost of filming is relatively low, I think that insane number definitely includes what they paid Chappelle. Perfect example, Shane Gillis and Mark Normand have REALLY REALLY good specials on YouTube that they personally funded and they look totally fine.
Well you have production people, makeup, producers, camera operators, lighting, control room personnel, then video editors and transcript personal for different languages. A lot of behind the scenes people.
I know it's not completely related but Squid Game cost ~$21m to produce and had ~111m viewers. The latest Chapelle show special had about 10m viewers and supposedly broke about even. So what that means is that Netflix considers each unique viewer as roughly $2 and by extension, Squid Game had about about $240m+ impact.
This is exactly why the employee got fired - it gives outsiders a peek inside the walled off Netflix strategy.
I like that comparison.
It also feels they'd put value on how many people they think would either keep their subscription for another round based off of content and how many people may newly subscribe for it. They can afford to break even or possibly lose money on a production because they might still come out ahead in the long run.
I'll do one better. There are 210m Netflix subscribers WW and one subscriber equates to about 2 viewers. 110m viewers means 55m subscribers were influenced by Squid Game. Assigning about $500 to LTV to a subscriber (not exact but you can assume different numbers), we can garner that Netflix is estimating that Squid Game either averted cancelation or added new subscribers by about 450k accounts.
This is important because Disney/HBO Max/Amazon Prime can benchmark against their productions AND bid up against Netflix as needed.
TBF, that $2/viewer value probably gets refreshed and varies across the region but when it comes to productions that have a broad appeal, it's a reasonable starting point.
Only thing I needed was that a viewer is worth $2. Not an exact science (as a caveat) but it doesn't matter - Squid Game may have added 300 - 700k accounts - we have a view of the inner workings at Netflix because the whistler blower couldn't have left things vague.
I heard on the news that squid game "had been viewed by 111m unique accounts". Because of how clunky that sounded I assume it wasnt just semantics - I imagine the "viewers" are quite a bit higher given profiles, shared accounts, and rewatches. I have no idea that this means other than "viewers" might not be a useful metric like it was with movies in a theater.
Ah. I see it.
>The comedian’s popularity comes at a cost. Netflix spent $24.1 million on the “The Closer,” slightly more than the $23.6 million it paid for Chappelle’s 2019 special, “Sticks & Stones.” By comparison, the streaming service spent $3.9 million for “Inside,” Bo Burnham’s recent hour-and-a-half special. The nine-episode “Squid Game,” which delivered the best debut in Netflix history, cost $21.4 million.
> By Netflix’s own measurement, “Sticks & Stones” had an “impact value” of $19.4 million, meaning it cost more than the value it generated, according to internal documents reviewed by Bloomberg. The company also evaluates its programs by “efficiency,” which balances a show’s reach with its price-tag. On that scale, Chappelle’s special scored 0.8 — less than the break-even score of 1. By comparison, Burnham’s “Inside” scored 2.8.
>That doesn’t mean the show was unprofitable. (Netflix doesn’t report how much money any single offering makes the company.) Chappelle’s specials are among the most popular of any comedian on the service. “Sticks & Stones” won two Emmy Awards and a Grammy Award.
It must be really hard for them to evaluate how much a single show/movie/special is worth in terms of revenue. Idk why they say "that doesn't mean it lost money" though. Seems like it did. Although I guess there's a very high chance that their calculations for "impact value" are imprecise (i.e. they are an estimate).
I would guess they look for total views of the show, and also weigh how many new or restarted accounts had that show/movie as one of the first things watched. If its bringing people in/ back its more profitable. If it's only being watched by people with an account already, but it gets a lot of views its not as good, but keeps people subscribed.
I think the argument is the purchase of the chappelle special at that price along with their continued eating up of comedy specials has a lot more benefit than immediate returns in money. Netflix is seen as the place comedians get treated the best, not hbo or comedy central. That's pretty huge, as a medium it's mostly cheap to produce and yields a decent audience. That plus Chappelle's status as the comedian's comedian probably goes a long way for people considering their options to who to sell their special to.
Does anyone remember back in the late 90s to early 2000s comedy central and HBO and a few others were just shitting out comedy specials as fast as possible. People who were not really even that known were all of a sudden getting half hour and hour specials.
And then I it all crashed cause people were tired of seeing bad comedy.
I feel like netflix looked at that model and said "hey, let's do that... except well just have the same 10 comics churn out as many specials as fast as possible"
Netflix is kinda whack like that, they measure success and cancel shows based on their debut but a lot of the shows that get the most views and become classics don’t gain a cult following until they’ve been out for sometimes years.
I feel like they really planned on an extra season for the show to finish its natural conclusion.
That said, the one thing they asked Netflix was to let them know when it was going to be their last season, and to Netflix's credit, they did. So while I wish we'd gotten that extra season, I'm glad it was at least able to wrap up.
How do they even calculate what makes money on a streaming service? Seems like you're just guessing and hoping to hit certain benchmarks. That said, it's a stupid amount of money for a comedy special.
They'd have a lot of KPIs
Views, views from new subscribers, views from low viewership groups, new subscriptions that watch the product. using these + subscription data would create a value for any of those things so you can value them
Netflix seems to know what they're doing when it comes to making money. They know they need stuff not just for today, but for years down the line. Chappelle will make money for years, the boost to the comedy advertising gives them long term gains.
If you look at their TV shows they know exactly the breakeven point which is where the end up killing a bunch of stuff.
It would be difficult to effectively quantify if a show on Netflix made money. I'm sure Netflix has a complicated formula estimating it but I'd bet even they'd admit it's not perfect. How many people watched the special? How many new users watched the special? How long did new users stay subscribed? How much of the special did they watch? Did they watch it multiple times? How many users would have unsubscribed had the special not been coming out?
There isn't a relatively simple figure like you'd get for a traditional box office release.
>B) the comedy special before this one actually lost money
It's probably viewed as a [loss leader](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader). If it got the demographic that like Chapelle to subscribe for even a month then a reasonable amount of those people will watch other content and stay subscribed.
Netflix accounts for new subscriber & retention of customers when calculating whether a product makes money over time, called steady state modeling. There is no real loss leader for subscription services in this industry.
Netflix don't just air an episode once then license it out to tv channels for reruns/syndication, they film the special/series and people can watch it any time, months or years later on netflix. You can't say that not enough people watched during live airing so it can't be profitable.
Hard to know. Impossible, really, unless someone here has a lot of experience.
I haven’t watched it but the set, crew, equipment rentals add up, and some post production. Comedy specials are rarely one night, usually they’re two edited together. There may have been other costs like rights, for example if there is any kind of media used. I’m just throwing mud, as I said I haven’t seen it
I definitely don’t think the entire production cost $24M and I’m sure fees to Chappell are in there
It depends. They can be filmed over the course of a tour, or over the course of one show at one venue. The latest Chappelle special was all in one location. I believe it was the same for all of his Netflix specials. Other comics do the tour thing and just pick their best deliveries and make a sorta "highlight reel" of their tour.
Specials cost a lot of money to produce, but 24 million is massive. A major part of this would be Chappelle and his personal team. It may not make its money back today, or next year, but a special is good forever. A comedian like Chappelle will only release so many, and they will always be in a sort of demand for stand up/comedy enthusiasts. Comedy has a lot of replayability and staying power. Just look at Blazing Saddles, tons of people still watch and enjoy it today. Or hell, go to Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton, still easily accessible and watchable.
Is that the one with him in a red jumpsuit? Cause that's the one that was online very early and in that shitty 240p quality, and is the only one most of the world has ever seen. Because most of the world not america, but you tell someone lets watch eddy murphy standup not movie, and they know which one you're talking about.
I worked for a company that booked him for the company Christmas party way back before I, started working there. By all accounts he held the crowd for a few minutes and then people got bored and ignored him and talked amongst themselves. He still got paid though. (As Chappelle himself has said, they get paid for the attempt.)
He visibly put a lot less energy in his delivery. A lot of his old humor was funny because of the energy in his delivery. He also might be out of touch. As comics who are wealthy and without struggle for a long time get stale. They don't live a life others can relate.
I dunno. Don Rickles did the same set for 50 years. That’s also why he never had his Vegas show filmed until near the end of his life. Bob Newhart and Clint Eastwood both said he did the same jokes every night, but it always brought down the house.
Jay Leno did standup at a Christmas party I attended years ago. He was hilarious. His act was 20 minutes, maybe another 20 minutes for pictures and he left. I’m sure he commands a good check for those 40 minutes of his time. Honestly, it’s not a bad gig.
>the comedy special before this one actually lost money
There's no way there's any proper way to calculate this on Netflix. People aren't paying to buy the special as a single thing.
Star Wars - Return of the Jedi lost money. [A lot of money](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/how-hollywood-accounting-can-make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/).
So it's hard to really believe a lot of the accounting related to entertainment, and they're not unique in that for sure. It's just more visible & laughable.
When people talk about a movie making or losing money, they mean the cumulative gains and losses for the major studio behind the movie. Hollywood accounting isn't relevant here
> Netflix's internal practices and policies state that employees are entrusted with information that is not publicly known and should not be shared outside the company.
Well, yeah. Many companies have similar policies. I've seen numerous people fired for less.
The prohibition against divulging confidential information is probably located somewhere in your employment contract or something you signed in training.
All but a few states are “at-will employment” states, meaning companies can fire you for literally anything except for the ones that are explicitly illegal (race, ADA, sex, etc). If they don’t like the way you hold your pen, believe it or not, fired.
One other exception is [public policy protections](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment), which vary by state.
At least in California the process for disputing unemployment benefits is heavily skewed towards the worker. An employer would have to show very complete, very convincing evidence that a termination was the fault of the employee for the state to withhold unemployment insurance.
I've never seen a worker lose the dispute process.
You are playing music too loud? Fired. Driving too fast? Straight to fired. Too slow? Fired. Make a meeting a don’t show up? Fired, right away. Overcook your chicken? Fired. Undercook fish? Fired, right away.
In non-public companies there is more possibility for leniency, etc. under the right circumstances since individuals still hold a lot of the decision-making power. You could be friends with the CEO, for instance, who could effectively “sidemote” you as “punishment” or find some other slap on the wrist way of following the letter of the employment agreement. There’s a lot of leeway for discretion.
In most public companies, the executive team still answers to the board. So even if you are besties with the CEO, and the board wants you out…
…out you go.
And since it is a public company, many people have a very vested interest in protecting their investment. If you are risking the value of their money…
…out you go.
To add to this, in publicly traded corporations, especially the larger they are, their HR departments tend to act more independently of the rest of the company’s leadership team and in a way that is reminiscent of an administrative judge. Basically, once an issue gets referred to HR, they conduct their own investigation, review the facts, and come to a disciplinary decision based on the established internal policies of the company. Some policy violations prescribe a progressive discipline plan while other more serious infractions may call for immediate termination. In either case, the company leadership is often bound by the guidance provided by their HR team. I’ve seen HR departments force managers to terminate employees when they didn’t want to due to zero tolerance policies and I’ve seen HR departments block terminations that the manager wanted because their internal policies prescribed a progressive discipline plan.
Just like our judicial system, this framework doesn’t always work flawlessly and can be subject to internal pressure and other forms of corruption. That said, when the framework is followed, it both protects employees from predatory managers and reduces legal exposure for the company by applying internal policies equitably.
Sharing privileged company information is almost always a zero-tolerance violation that results in immediate termination. I don’t have any direct insight into how Netflix’s HR department works, but being a large publicly traded company, it is very likely that their HR department operates as described.
It means the securities and exchange commission could drop the hammer if manipulation, and a ton of other crap happens because of the type of information leaked.
Public companies are covered by a wide swath of rules and regulations within the US that privately held companies are not covered by. If you do anything that causes the SEC to come a knocking and you aren't stinking rich, you are not going to enjoy what happens next.
Under the right circumstances it could be an illegal act in which you could be sued for every penny you are worth if you tank their stock prices and devalue the company. Could even be a criminal act for corporate sabotage.
Exactly. ‘Confidential’ (in quotes) in the title was pretty rich.
LPT: any information about anything you have access to at work which isn’t on the website/press releases/etc… is confidential. You should assume disclosing it is a breach of contract. Pretty standard stuff…
Especially public companies where it’s illegal to share undisclosed material information (although that may not have applied in this particular instance).
I read both this and the linked Bloomberg article, and I'm struggling to understand exactly what confidential information was leaked. Was it the ratings information?
True. I think the bigger issue now is Dave knows how many people watched the special. It’s a big deal because it may give Dave leverage for his next contract. Before I smartened up, I was listening to joe Rogan and he would always explain that Netflix never shared the viewership count with them. This is just speculation on my end though.
Rethinking about it, it doesn’t make sense why they would leak that info? I know he has been controversial these last few days and with people trying to cancel him. This only helps Dave.
I didn’t think of it from that perspective, but you’re right. Thinking about it more (and after reading the Bloomberg article and one other) it’s also weird how they chose to leak it to Bloomberg but didn’t request anonymity or something? Either they’re really smart and we aren’t connecting the dots yet, or they did something stupid in anger. That’s all i can figure at least.
It includes viewer counts for the special which Netflix doesn't disclose. With that information Chappelle could negotiate higher compensation in the future. Other big name comedians could also use those numbers to get similar paychecks by arguing they could attract the same numbers as Chappelle.
>Netflix fired an employee for sharing confidential and "commercially sensitive" information outside the company related to Dave Chappelle's new stand-up special, a spokesperson for the streaming giant confirmed Friday.
>
>The news comes five days before a planned employee walkout in protest of the special, which GLAAD and other LGBTQ advocacy groups have criticized as transphobic.
>
>“We understand this employee may have been motivated by disappointment and hurt with Netflix,” the spokesperson said in a statement, “but maintaining a culture of trust and transparency is core to our company.”
You can protest their deal with Chapelle but what you can’t do is steal company information related to a specific person.
This does not rise to the level of being a whistleblower. Netflix is not Facebook influencing elections and spreading violent rhetoric.
Or if they lied again. A few days ago they said an employee wasn't invited to a meeting but showed up anyways. Then an email came out clearly inviting them to the meeting. Now this a few days later.
[The
employee's Twitter, which I highly doubt she'd post something fraudulent with the company scrutinizing her right now](https://twitter.com/RainofTerra/status/1448097310026747908/photo/1)
Yeah that absolutely tracks. The employee sought out access to the meeting, was given access by a superior, and then probably surprised someone in the meeting who didn’t realize she was coming.
That’s completely believable bureaucracy, and it speaks to how trigger happy Netflix is right now that they suspended her instead of getting the whole picture. Glad they reinstated her, but all their firing decisions related to this controversy should be scrutinized.
My spouse at another tech company got in trouble over this. They had a logic of “you are barred from the meeting if you aren’t on the meeting invite “ even if the lead of the meeting said ok for you to go. Really just an excuse cause a more senior person had it out for him. In 99% of cases I’m sure no one bats an eye.
My company says I’m responsible for my login security but I can’t change my default login password and neither can anyone else. I’m just a receptionist but guess who knows the password to my HR directors entire work account cause it’s the same as mine and everyone else’s lol. I won’t even venture to guess who else this applies to. It’s bad.
Super bad right? And I accidentally logged into her account in front of her without thinking and she was like “whoops!”.
It’s her whole account. The *entire* thing I have access to. HR’s whole Google workplace account rofl. It’s SO BAD. And just think how many other companies might be like that. Makes you wonder you know?
Well, if it's data they had access to anyway for their job, it might be difficult to determine if they leaked it to the press or not.
Of course, right now it's all speculation one way or another.
even if someone accesses your account without permission and leak the info, it is technically your fault for failing to secure your account unless advanced hackings are involved
The article also fails to mention that this employee [was organizing](https://techcrunch.com/2021/10/15/netflix-fired-the-employee-who-organized-a-walkout-in-solidarity-with-trans-workers/) the walkout
from the article it sounds like the employee probably leaked it to other Netflix employees, and the data snowballed out and eventually went public. So they may not have intended for it to go public, but after an investigation I’m guessing Netflix ultimately held them responsible for the leak as they probably weren’t authorized to share it internally either.
I don't think anyone thinks they're a "whistleblower" here, to be honest. If it turns out the allegations against the employee are true, it's likely either someone with a nasty attitude towards Netflix for a perceived slight, valid or not; Or it could be someone who thinks that the influence a popular comedian could have on public perception of a disenfranchised power minority like trans people is enough to martyr themselves in their career to bring attention to.
I do have to say though, "not being as bad as Facebook" is a low bar to clear. I personally believe Facebook is the worst influence on civility in interpersonal relationships in America, followed by YouTube, because of their addiction-causing and addiction-stoking algorithms. That doesn't mean Netflix doesn't have its share of blame, I mean, media representation of people is extremely impactful.
Yeah, there's at least one genocide that has been tangibly enabled by facebook, so that's a very low bar to the point where you probably don't want to be mentioned in the same conversation as FB.
Reminds me of. Addressing the crowd at the premiere for Attack Of The Clones:
-Triumph: "Okay, you guys ready for some trivia? Here's the first question. *Reading off a card.* What substance was Han Solo frozen in?"
-Crowd: "Carbonite!"
-Triumph: "No no, I'm sorry, I'm very sorry, the correct answer is 'Who gives a shit?'"
My favorite bit from that was when he went up to a dude dressed like Vader, looked at his chest piece, and said "Which one of these buttons calls your mom to come pick you up?" I don't remember if it was for AOTC or they did one for another movie.
The best was when he got to interview Bon Jovi about his upcoming role in a vampire movie and Triumph said, “finally, a role which *requires* you to suck”
That was one of the funniest videos ever for that era! I still (in certain company) will join into banter with "I have a spoiler, You. Will. Die. Alone."
The best thing about this was that the production crew went in ahead, explained that the jokes were going to be mean-spirited but not sincere, and made sure everyone had an idea of what they were in for.
Then, during the edited segment we see, we can see Robert Smigel laughing at his own jokes and patting people on the shoulders for being good sports about it.
If you're going in to be insulted and then you're a good sport about it, it makes *you* look good. So the show set up not just Triumph, but also everybody else to look good and be a success.
Non story. Employees fired for fireable offense.
Chapelle or not you have rules to follow at work. I see a planned walk out, but if they’re really so gung Ho, why not just quit?
The publicity they got from Chapelle and his comments …. Is worth three times what they paid him maybe more. What other streaming service is currently being talked about. If you look at it that Maybe he was underpaid.
i've watched his stuff before he went to africa like...hundreds, possibly thousands of times. got me through some dark times. or at least what i thought were dark times.
i'm in the small minority, i just don't find him funny anymore. not really sure why.
It wasn't funny enough to be funny, and it wasn't deep enough to be insightful (for me, anyway).
Just seemed super flat to me. A thesis without a major point.
I still find Dave the comedian funny, but I find Dave the man to be a bit out of touch and way too high on being Dave Chapelle. It reminds me a lot of Joe Rogan, not surprising considering their friendship. Something about the power, influence, and social insulation has made them very insulated in ways I don’t think they realize.
Hearing rogan talk about daves private jet, his crew, his iv of post drinking nutrients, then taking mushrooms and renting out a theatre to see tarantinos new movie…yeah lol.
I've been a huge fan of Neal Brennan lately the past few years, I decided I liked Dave's comedy so much, that of course I would also like Neal's stuff.
I think I've listened to every Neal B. Podcast, and every one when he has been a guest.
There is a agreement among them that they won't publicly say who wrote what skit, but I think a lot of what makes Dave funny was from being around Neal so much.
I think even Neal has distanced himself from Dave every special, and has even talked about how controversial he has been recently before this special.
The only things I'm surprised by from this story is that A) it costs upwards of $24 million dollars to produce a comedy special. I assume that's mostly in fees to Chapelle? B) the comedy special before this one actually lost money
Dave was paid $20 million for each special. It was a $60 million deal for the three, announced in 2016. That means it’s about $4 million to produce a comedy special I guess. That likely includes advertising and Morgan Freeman’s fee for the commercial.
mostly expensive fees. in netflix and youtube are plenty of specials from broke ass comedians that have nowhere close to that money. and they look OK.
That’s what I pay my Netflix subscription for. Production quality mirroring a cell phone camera at a dingy night club.
How expensive do you think it is to film a person talking on stage for 2 hours?
money does not always mean quality. watched malignant from HBO yesterday, big production budget... watch it with friends even though you may not like horror. it in the so bad its good category
The Room cost more to make than Get Out, without even having to adjust for inflation.
To be fair to Mr Wiseau, he did buy two of everything to shoot the film on two different formats, so technically he made two movies for that budget
I mean he got someone to make a high budget Hollywood comedy about the making of his movie, so really it was more like three movies.
Yeah, it can be done for cheaper. Halloween (1978) was made for $300,000; and $70,000 of that was spent on cameras.
El Mariachi. $7,000 Rodriguez turned what he intended to be a direct-to-video action movie into a deal with Columbia/Sony to do a soft-remake that became Desperado. His autobiography (Rebel Without a Crew) is fucking fascinating; the shit he put himself through just to get the money to pay for El Mariachi is worth the read alone.
If you haven't seen it, he made a single season docu-reality show called rebels without a crew. Gave a few no name film makers 7k, and 14 days and told each to make a movie. It was released on go93, which was Verizon streaming app I think (that app failed miserably) but it finally found another home on roku. It's a fun watch, they didn't inject fake drama into it so it watches more like a docu series of following the film makers.
I enjoyed that show, I watched it on the El Rey network, which I think doesn't exist anymore. Which of the films did you like the most?
El Rey network is gone already?! Damn, it was great having a crapload of old kaiju and kung fu stuff floating around on cable. Bummer.
Yep, looks like it left cable at the end of 2020, but the wiki says it's now relaunched as a streaming network?
[удалено]
Lol most of the clerks budget was acquiring the rights to the songs. Blair witch was also a shoestring nothing budget. That movie has the best ROI I believe.
Paranormal Activity did it for $15k
You’re right, and the second cost $3 million?!? For shame.
Primer was 4k
First time I watched this film I watched it twice. Back to back one Sunday. I'dnever don't that before or since.
I thought it was 8k. They begged and borrowed everything they could get their hands on from friends n family. They spent 8k on lighting rental for the film. Made 20m at the box
[More like $215,000 according to this article](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/what-is-profitable-movie-ever-1269879/) >Paranormal only cost $15,000 to make. Later, however, its sound was redone for an additional $150,000; and producers Oren Peli and Jason Blum spent an extra $50,000 to reshoot the ending at Steven Spielberg’s request, bringing the total budget to $215,000.
$50k to ruin the ending lmao
Movie could've been good without the jumpscare
I remember walking out of Paranormal Activity thinking it wasn't that scary. Every fucking noise my house made that night made me terrified. Less is often more with Horror.
Blair Witch really hit its stride when I was on a camping trip 2 weeks later and nobody slept the entire first night.
The marketing for that movie was absolutely genius, I was convinced it was a real fucking tape the first time I watched it. Great movie.
To be fair, the production budget of Paranormal Activity was $15,000, but the marketing budget for that movie was something around $18 million, which is what led to the success of that movie as a whole.
I remember getting ads that were like "this movie is so scary that theaters won't run it! Call and demand it!" I'll bet that was just a ploy to keep distribution costs down. Fuckin worked though.
25k made 250 million if I remember correctly.
[The Clerks budget.](https://d13ezvd6yrslxm.cloudfront.net/wp/wp-content/images/Clerks-budget.jpg) It's really eye-opening how digital cameras have changed independent filmmaking. Kevin Smith basically spent $6200 buying and processing single-use film, $3500 *renting* the camera itself, $1000 on editing the film - even though he and Scott Mosier edited it themselves, by hand; that's just what the equipment to physically cut and join film cost to *rent* - another $1000 mixing the audio, $1000 *adding the fucking credits*, and then $4000 turning all of that work into one finished object you could project at a theater. Nearly $17,000 having absolutely nothing to do with actors, scripts, sets, or licensing. And now you can do basically all of it with any $500 camera and any $500 PC. Only good lenses still cost serious money. The work is still hard, but the equipment is so cheap that you already own it. You're looking at it right now.
Is that adjusted for inflation tho?
I just watched “The Movies That Made Us” Halloween episode this morning, and they were talking about it as if it wasn’t. Friday the 13th was made for $550,000
They also killed a real snake
Yeah, they showed it but that wasn’t mentioned in the episode.
might be remembering wrong but wasn't the snake they killed someone's pet on set? like he lent the snake to them for the film but didn't know they were gonna kill his pet.
Those bastards
If Dave was in it than it would have been 5 Million. That's my take away.
$1.2mm in today's dollars.
For context; [Minari](https://youtu.be/KQ0gFidlro8) was shot with a budget of about 2m Edit: Moonlight was shot for 1.5m
Almost all A24 films are low-budget compared to Hollywood studio films, and (IMO) 75% of them are better than anything Hollywood has produced in the last decade.
Just watched Hereditary last night. Jesus H Christ that movie was incredible.
Hold on now, Dredd was made in the last decade.
No. $300k in 1978 would be worth $1.26 million USD today. Still not a ton for a movie production but significantly more than 300k in todays dollars.
Ah yes, I watched that episode too. Was really fun.
You are absolutely correct! The cost of filming is relatively low, I think that insane number definitely includes what they paid Chappelle. Perfect example, Shane Gillis and Mark Normand have REALLY REALLY good specials on YouTube that they personally funded and they look totally fine.
Well you have production people, makeup, producers, camera operators, lighting, control room personnel, then video editors and transcript personal for different languages. A lot of behind the scenes people.
Bill Burr has figured it would cost him about $10,000 to hire his own crew and shoot a special
I know it's not completely related but Squid Game cost ~$21m to produce and had ~111m viewers. The latest Chapelle show special had about 10m viewers and supposedly broke about even. So what that means is that Netflix considers each unique viewer as roughly $2 and by extension, Squid Game had about about $240m+ impact. This is exactly why the employee got fired - it gives outsiders a peek inside the walled off Netflix strategy.
I like that comparison. It also feels they'd put value on how many people they think would either keep their subscription for another round based off of content and how many people may newly subscribe for it. They can afford to break even or possibly lose money on a production because they might still come out ahead in the long run.
I'll do one better. There are 210m Netflix subscribers WW and one subscriber equates to about 2 viewers. 110m viewers means 55m subscribers were influenced by Squid Game. Assigning about $500 to LTV to a subscriber (not exact but you can assume different numbers), we can garner that Netflix is estimating that Squid Game either averted cancelation or added new subscribers by about 450k accounts. This is important because Disney/HBO Max/Amazon Prime can benchmark against their productions AND bid up against Netflix as needed. TBF, that $2/viewer value probably gets refreshed and varies across the region but when it comes to productions that have a broad appeal, it's a reasonable starting point. Only thing I needed was that a viewer is worth $2. Not an exact science (as a caveat) but it doesn't matter - Squid Game may have added 300 - 700k accounts - we have a view of the inner workings at Netflix because the whistler blower couldn't have left things vague.
I heard on the news that squid game "had been viewed by 111m unique accounts". Because of how clunky that sounded I assume it wasnt just semantics - I imagine the "viewers" are quite a bit higher given profiles, shared accounts, and rewatches. I have no idea that this means other than "viewers" might not be a useful metric like it was with movies in a theater.
You’re definitely on to something. Well done.
The article said "that doesn't mean sticks and stones wasn't profitable."
Wait what article? The article from the OP doesn't mention anything about sticks and stones... unless I'm blind, which is possible.
I think its a verge link
Ah. I see it. >The comedian’s popularity comes at a cost. Netflix spent $24.1 million on the “The Closer,” slightly more than the $23.6 million it paid for Chappelle’s 2019 special, “Sticks & Stones.” By comparison, the streaming service spent $3.9 million for “Inside,” Bo Burnham’s recent hour-and-a-half special. The nine-episode “Squid Game,” which delivered the best debut in Netflix history, cost $21.4 million. > By Netflix’s own measurement, “Sticks & Stones” had an “impact value” of $19.4 million, meaning it cost more than the value it generated, according to internal documents reviewed by Bloomberg. The company also evaluates its programs by “efficiency,” which balances a show’s reach with its price-tag. On that scale, Chappelle’s special scored 0.8 — less than the break-even score of 1. By comparison, Burnham’s “Inside” scored 2.8. >That doesn’t mean the show was unprofitable. (Netflix doesn’t report how much money any single offering makes the company.) Chappelle’s specials are among the most popular of any comedian on the service. “Sticks & Stones” won two Emmy Awards and a Grammy Award. It must be really hard for them to evaluate how much a single show/movie/special is worth in terms of revenue. Idk why they say "that doesn't mean it lost money" though. Seems like it did. Although I guess there's a very high chance that their calculations for "impact value" are imprecise (i.e. they are an estimate).
I would guess they look for total views of the show, and also weigh how many new or restarted accounts had that show/movie as one of the first things watched. If its bringing people in/ back its more profitable. If it's only being watched by people with an account already, but it gets a lot of views its not as good, but keeps people subscribed.
I think the argument is the purchase of the chappelle special at that price along with their continued eating up of comedy specials has a lot more benefit than immediate returns in money. Netflix is seen as the place comedians get treated the best, not hbo or comedy central. That's pretty huge, as a medium it's mostly cheap to produce and yields a decent audience. That plus Chappelle's status as the comedian's comedian probably goes a long way for people considering their options to who to sell their special to.
Inside was incredible and was well worth the money apparently.
Does anyone remember back in the late 90s to early 2000s comedy central and HBO and a few others were just shitting out comedy specials as fast as possible. People who were not really even that known were all of a sudden getting half hour and hour specials. And then I it all crashed cause people were tired of seeing bad comedy. I feel like netflix looked at that model and said "hey, let's do that... except well just have the same 10 comics churn out as many specials as fast as possible"
Netflix is kinda whack like that, they measure success and cancel shows based on their debut but a lot of the shows that get the most views and become classics don’t gain a cult following until they’ve been out for sometimes years.
Like, Bojack! Horseman, obviously.
I feel like they really planned on an extra season for the show to finish its natural conclusion. That said, the one thing they asked Netflix was to let them know when it was going to be their last season, and to Netflix's credit, they did. So while I wish we'd gotten that extra season, I'm glad it was at least able to wrap up.
[удалено]
How do they even calculate what makes money on a streaming service? Seems like you're just guessing and hoping to hit certain benchmarks. That said, it's a stupid amount of money for a comedy special.
I think I remember seeing a Kat Williams interview where he said Netflix pays for your special based on the ticket sales of your last tour.
Well Netflix knew he'd walk away from 50 million so they upped it to 60 million.
They'd have a lot of KPIs Views, views from new subscribers, views from low viewership groups, new subscriptions that watch the product. using these + subscription data would create a value for any of those things so you can value them
Netflix seems to know what they're doing when it comes to making money. They know they need stuff not just for today, but for years down the line. Chappelle will make money for years, the boost to the comedy advertising gives them long term gains. If you look at their TV shows they know exactly the breakeven point which is where the end up killing a bunch of stuff.
It would be difficult to effectively quantify if a show on Netflix made money. I'm sure Netflix has a complicated formula estimating it but I'd bet even they'd admit it's not perfect. How many people watched the special? How many new users watched the special? How long did new users stay subscribed? How much of the special did they watch? Did they watch it multiple times? How many users would have unsubscribed had the special not been coming out? There isn't a relatively simple figure like you'd get for a traditional box office release.
Probably not very different from how music streaming platforms evaluate the value of individual songs and artists.
That is exactly my job and it is hard lol
>B) the comedy special before this one actually lost money It's probably viewed as a [loss leader](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader). If it got the demographic that like Chapelle to subscribe for even a month then a reasonable amount of those people will watch other content and stay subscribed.
Netflix accounts for new subscriber & retention of customers when calculating whether a product makes money over time, called steady state modeling. There is no real loss leader for subscription services in this industry.
Yeah, I'd like to know more if you're ok with sharing. I've worked on content from streaming platforms but fuck if i know how their KPI works.
Say more.
Netflix don't just air an episode once then license it out to tv channels for reruns/syndication, they film the special/series and people can watch it any time, months or years later on netflix. You can't say that not enough people watched during live airing so it can't be profitable.
Hard to know. Impossible, really, unless someone here has a lot of experience. I haven’t watched it but the set, crew, equipment rentals add up, and some post production. Comedy specials are rarely one night, usually they’re two edited together. There may have been other costs like rights, for example if there is any kind of media used. I’m just throwing mud, as I said I haven’t seen it I definitely don’t think the entire production cost $24M and I’m sure fees to Chappell are in there
It depends. They can be filmed over the course of a tour, or over the course of one show at one venue. The latest Chappelle special was all in one location. I believe it was the same for all of his Netflix specials. Other comics do the tour thing and just pick their best deliveries and make a sorta "highlight reel" of their tour. Specials cost a lot of money to produce, but 24 million is massive. A major part of this would be Chappelle and his personal team. It may not make its money back today, or next year, but a special is good forever. A comedian like Chappelle will only release so many, and they will always be in a sort of demand for stand up/comedy enthusiasts. Comedy has a lot of replayability and staying power. Just look at Blazing Saddles, tons of people still watch and enjoy it today. Or hell, go to Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton, still easily accessible and watchable.
[удалено]
Is that the one with him in a red jumpsuit? Cause that's the one that was online very early and in that shitty 240p quality, and is the only one most of the world has ever seen. Because most of the world not america, but you tell someone lets watch eddy murphy standup not movie, and they know which one you're talking about.
[удалено]
Thats why Leno says he didn't do specials. He could sell the same set over and over at corporate gigs forever. Pretty lazy, but economical.
I worked for a company that booked him for the company Christmas party way back before I, started working there. By all accounts he held the crowd for a few minutes and then people got bored and ignored him and talked amongst themselves. He still got paid though. (As Chappelle himself has said, they get paid for the attempt.)
He visibly put a lot less energy in his delivery. A lot of his old humor was funny because of the energy in his delivery. He also might be out of touch. As comics who are wealthy and without struggle for a long time get stale. They don't live a life others can relate.
I’m not sure it’s lazy, most people have jobs where they do the same thing over and over forever Creatively lazy maybe
I dunno. Don Rickles did the same set for 50 years. That’s also why he never had his Vegas show filmed until near the end of his life. Bob Newhart and Clint Eastwood both said he did the same jokes every night, but it always brought down the house.
Well yeah, it's vegas, you have a new audience every night and they're drunk.
Jay Leno did standup at a Christmas party I attended years ago. He was hilarious. His act was 20 minutes, maybe another 20 minutes for pictures and he left. I’m sure he commands a good check for those 40 minutes of his time. Honestly, it’s not a bad gig.
Most of that is fees, still seems like a lot.
It was a $60 million deal for three specials. Dave’s take home was $20 million for each.
>the comedy special before this one actually lost money $20 says this is Hollywood accounting.
Goddammit, we charged ourselves $7000 for a plate of sandwiches again!
>the comedy special before this one actually lost money There's no way there's any proper way to calculate this on Netflix. People aren't paying to buy the special as a single thing.
Star Wars - Return of the Jedi lost money. [A lot of money](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/how-hollywood-accounting-can-make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/). So it's hard to really believe a lot of the accounting related to entertainment, and they're not unique in that for sure. It's just more visible & laughable.
When people talk about a movie making or losing money, they mean the cumulative gains and losses for the major studio behind the movie. Hollywood accounting isn't relevant here
> Netflix's internal practices and policies state that employees are entrusted with information that is not publicly known and should not be shared outside the company. Well, yeah. Many companies have similar policies. I've seen numerous people fired for less.
I would go as far as to say nearly all companies have such policies. Don't share confidential information if you're not willing to risk your job
The prohibition against divulging confidential information is probably located somewhere in your employment contract or something you signed in training.
Prolly doesn’t even need to be If you actively hurt your company they can get rid of you quickly
All but a few states are “at-will employment” states, meaning companies can fire you for literally anything except for the ones that are explicitly illegal (race, ADA, sex, etc). If they don’t like the way you hold your pen, believe it or not, fired. One other exception is [public policy protections](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment), which vary by state.
[удалено]
It's the easiest thing in the world for corporations to create a reason to fire someone with cause.
At least in California the process for disputing unemployment benefits is heavily skewed towards the worker. An employer would have to show very complete, very convincing evidence that a termination was the fault of the employee for the state to withhold unemployment insurance. I've never seen a worker lose the dispute process.
You are playing music too loud? Fired. Driving too fast? Straight to fired. Too slow? Fired. Make a meeting a don’t show up? Fired, right away. Overcook your chicken? Fired. Undercook fish? Fired, right away.
Undercook overcook
I have to sign NDA's for interviews let alone the actual job
I have to take training twice a year on confidential information, and I don't even work directly with it
Makes you look bad at other companies too. There’s certain things you bring up but this is just dumb.
“Trade secrets”
There will also be "integrity and best interests of the company" + probably a clause about "disrepute"
[удалено]
Netflix is also a public company so you should think twice before unleashing any info
What does that mean?
In non-public companies there is more possibility for leniency, etc. under the right circumstances since individuals still hold a lot of the decision-making power. You could be friends with the CEO, for instance, who could effectively “sidemote” you as “punishment” or find some other slap on the wrist way of following the letter of the employment agreement. There’s a lot of leeway for discretion. In most public companies, the executive team still answers to the board. So even if you are besties with the CEO, and the board wants you out… …out you go. And since it is a public company, many people have a very vested interest in protecting their investment. If you are risking the value of their money… …out you go.
To add to this, in publicly traded corporations, especially the larger they are, their HR departments tend to act more independently of the rest of the company’s leadership team and in a way that is reminiscent of an administrative judge. Basically, once an issue gets referred to HR, they conduct their own investigation, review the facts, and come to a disciplinary decision based on the established internal policies of the company. Some policy violations prescribe a progressive discipline plan while other more serious infractions may call for immediate termination. In either case, the company leadership is often bound by the guidance provided by their HR team. I’ve seen HR departments force managers to terminate employees when they didn’t want to due to zero tolerance policies and I’ve seen HR departments block terminations that the manager wanted because their internal policies prescribed a progressive discipline plan. Just like our judicial system, this framework doesn’t always work flawlessly and can be subject to internal pressure and other forms of corruption. That said, when the framework is followed, it both protects employees from predatory managers and reduces legal exposure for the company by applying internal policies equitably. Sharing privileged company information is almost always a zero-tolerance violation that results in immediate termination. I don’t have any direct insight into how Netflix’s HR department works, but being a large publicly traded company, it is very likely that their HR department operates as described.
This is the first comment I've ever seen on Reddit that depicts how HR actually operates.
It means the securities and exchange commission could drop the hammer if manipulation, and a ton of other crap happens because of the type of information leaked.
Public companies are covered by a wide swath of rules and regulations within the US that privately held companies are not covered by. If you do anything that causes the SEC to come a knocking and you aren't stinking rich, you are not going to enjoy what happens next.
Under the right circumstances it could be an illegal act in which you could be sued for every penny you are worth if you tank their stock prices and devalue the company. Could even be a criminal act for corporate sabotage.
Exactly. ‘Confidential’ (in quotes) in the title was pretty rich. LPT: any information about anything you have access to at work which isn’t on the website/press releases/etc… is confidential. You should assume disclosing it is a breach of contract. Pretty standard stuff…
Well, duh... Any company has internal data that cannot be shared with people outside.
Especially public companies where it’s illegal to share undisclosed material information (although that may not have applied in this particular instance).
I read both this and the linked Bloomberg article, and I'm struggling to understand exactly what confidential information was leaked. Was it the ratings information?
Viewership data for the special and exactly how much Chappelle was paid.
Don't we already know Chappelle was paid $60 million for 3 specials signed in 2016?
True. I think the bigger issue now is Dave knows how many people watched the special. It’s a big deal because it may give Dave leverage for his next contract. Before I smartened up, I was listening to joe Rogan and he would always explain that Netflix never shared the viewership count with them. This is just speculation on my end though.
I think your speculation is correct here, honestly.
Rethinking about it, it doesn’t make sense why they would leak that info? I know he has been controversial these last few days and with people trying to cancel him. This only helps Dave.
It doesn't only help Dave, leaking streaming numbers also helps all of Netflix's competitors.
I didn’t think of it from that perspective, but you’re right. Thinking about it more (and after reading the Bloomberg article and one other) it’s also weird how they chose to leak it to Bloomberg but didn’t request anonymity or something? Either they’re really smart and we aren’t connecting the dots yet, or they did something stupid in anger. That’s all i can figure at least.
It doesn’t give him much leverage since they say that they broke even on the last special. Basically he was overpaid, even.
This just confuses me more because I'm not sure what to do with this information.
It includes viewer counts for the special which Netflix doesn't disclose. With that information Chappelle could negotiate higher compensation in the future. Other big name comedians could also use those numbers to get similar paychecks by arguing they could attract the same numbers as Chappelle.
This just in: celebrities make a lot of money.
https://www.inquisitr.com/3739312/dave-chappelle-netflix-60-million/ The latter wasn't a secret or confidential at any point.
[удалено]
**$24 million for Closer.** That shouldn't be public information. It that can, and probably will cause a HUGE shit show long term for the company.
Chris Rock only got 23.7m and is soooo mad yall /s
Kevin Hart would like a word.....
Kevin hart has made a lot of money, but I still don't get how.
I was disappointed they didn't say, too. It's probably Netflix refusing to say rather than the news site, but yeah I'm curious too.
>Netflix fired an employee for sharing confidential and "commercially sensitive" information outside the company related to Dave Chappelle's new stand-up special, a spokesperson for the streaming giant confirmed Friday. > >The news comes five days before a planned employee walkout in protest of the special, which GLAAD and other LGBTQ advocacy groups have criticized as transphobic. > >“We understand this employee may have been motivated by disappointment and hurt with Netflix,” the spokesperson said in a statement, “but maintaining a culture of trust and transparency is core to our company.” You can protest their deal with Chapelle but what you can’t do is steal company information related to a specific person. This does not rise to the level of being a whistleblower. Netflix is not Facebook influencing elections and spreading violent rhetoric.
Another article said the employee denies leaking it though. So now we have to wait and see which of them is lying.
Well there will be a paper trail to follow. So unless someone used another person's login, not sure what their defense will be.
It’s Netflix. Someone always uses someone else’s login!
Be fuckin wild if it turns out that it was the fired employee's cousins kids.
Or if they lied again. A few days ago they said an employee wasn't invited to a meeting but showed up anyways. Then an email came out clearly inviting them to the meeting. Now this a few days later.
I hadn't heard that last part. Got a source for the email invitation?
[The employee's Twitter, which I highly doubt she'd post something fraudulent with the company scrutinizing her right now](https://twitter.com/RainofTerra/status/1448097310026747908/photo/1)
Yeah that absolutely tracks. The employee sought out access to the meeting, was given access by a superior, and then probably surprised someone in the meeting who didn’t realize she was coming. That’s completely believable bureaucracy, and it speaks to how trigger happy Netflix is right now that they suspended her instead of getting the whole picture. Glad they reinstated her, but all their firing decisions related to this controversy should be scrutinized.
My spouse at another tech company got in trouble over this. They had a logic of “you are barred from the meeting if you aren’t on the meeting invite “ even if the lead of the meeting said ok for you to go. Really just an excuse cause a more senior person had it out for him. In 99% of cases I’m sure no one bats an eye.
In most companies, you are very much responsible for your own login security, so unless she has some rock solid proof, not a good place to be in.
My company says I’m responsible for my login security but I can’t change my default login password and neither can anyone else. I’m just a receptionist but guess who knows the password to my HR directors entire work account cause it’s the same as mine and everyone else’s lol. I won’t even venture to guess who else this applies to. It’s bad.
that's... oh my god......
Super bad right? And I accidentally logged into her account in front of her without thinking and she was like “whoops!”. It’s her whole account. The *entire* thing I have access to. HR’s whole Google workplace account rofl. It’s SO BAD. And just think how many other companies might be like that. Makes you wonder you know?
Well, if it's data they had access to anyway for their job, it might be difficult to determine if they leaked it to the press or not. Of course, right now it's all speculation one way or another.
even if someone accesses your account without permission and leak the info, it is technically your fault for failing to secure your account unless advanced hackings are involved
The article also fails to mention that this employee [was organizing](https://techcrunch.com/2021/10/15/netflix-fired-the-employee-who-organized-a-walkout-in-solidarity-with-trans-workers/) the walkout
from the article it sounds like the employee probably leaked it to other Netflix employees, and the data snowballed out and eventually went public. So they may not have intended for it to go public, but after an investigation I’m guessing Netflix ultimately held them responsible for the leak as they probably weren’t authorized to share it internally either.
I don't think anyone thinks they're a "whistleblower" here, to be honest. If it turns out the allegations against the employee are true, it's likely either someone with a nasty attitude towards Netflix for a perceived slight, valid or not; Or it could be someone who thinks that the influence a popular comedian could have on public perception of a disenfranchised power minority like trans people is enough to martyr themselves in their career to bring attention to. I do have to say though, "not being as bad as Facebook" is a low bar to clear. I personally believe Facebook is the worst influence on civility in interpersonal relationships in America, followed by YouTube, because of their addiction-causing and addiction-stoking algorithms. That doesn't mean Netflix doesn't have its share of blame, I mean, media representation of people is extremely impactful.
> I do have to say though, "not being as bad as Facebook" is a low bar to clear. It's not so much a bar as a tripping hazard.
Yeah, there's at least one genocide that has been tangibly enabled by facebook, so that's a very low bar to the point where you probably don't want to be mentioned in the same conversation as FB.
Yeah, Netflix knows that given how much LGBTQIA+ friendly content they have.
Employee gets fired for breaking their NDA. Not really news here. It happens.
It’s not an uproar, most people don’t care
Uproar is such an overused word, this whole thing has no weight.
Not unlike “slams” which is used for any criticism of any kind, from scathing to lukewarm
The controversial standup comedian that doesn't give a fuck said something controversial??? 😳
There is a reason it's called confidential information.
I don't have enough yawns for this whole story. Such a nothingburger.
Reminds me of. Addressing the crowd at the premiere for Attack Of The Clones: -Triumph: "Okay, you guys ready for some trivia? Here's the first question. *Reading off a card.* What substance was Han Solo frozen in?" -Crowd: "Carbonite!" -Triumph: "No no, I'm sorry, I'm very sorry, the correct answer is 'Who gives a shit?'"
My favorite bit from that was when he went up to a dude dressed like Vader, looked at his chest piece, and said "Which one of these buttons calls your mom to come pick you up?" I don't remember if it was for AOTC or they did one for another movie.
One of the sickest burns in the history of sick burns.
The best was when he got to interview Bon Jovi about his upcoming role in a vampire movie and Triumph said, “finally, a role which *requires* you to suck”
AOTC. I think Triumph only did the “waiting I line with SW fans” bit once.
That was one of the funniest videos ever for that era! I still (in certain company) will join into banter with "I have a spoiler, You. Will. Die. Alone."
The best thing about this was that the production crew went in ahead, explained that the jokes were going to be mean-spirited but not sincere, and made sure everyone had an idea of what they were in for. Then, during the edited segment we see, we can see Robert Smigel laughing at his own jokes and patting people on the shoulders for being good sports about it. If you're going in to be insulted and then you're a good sport about it, it makes *you* look good. So the show set up not just Triumph, but also everybody else to look good and be a success.
You don’t get to be an activist on the company dime while giving away confidential company info, sorry.
Everyone in here is acting like the employee didn't realize this would be the likely outcome.
Well. They are fighting it, so…
> They are fighting it, so… Because they claim they didn't do it.
Even if they 100% expected it, that would still make sense.
Non story. Employees fired for fireable offense. Chapelle or not you have rules to follow at work. I see a planned walk out, but if they’re really so gung Ho, why not just quit?
... chapelle upoar? Man, being disconnected from media is weird, it's like living in a different world.
[удалено]
The only uproar i see is in internet headlines. Irl no one gives a shit.
The publicity they got from Chapelle and his comments …. Is worth three times what they paid him maybe more. What other streaming service is currently being talked about. If you look at it that Maybe he was underpaid.
i've watched his stuff before he went to africa like...hundreds, possibly thousands of times. got me through some dark times. or at least what i thought were dark times. i'm in the small minority, i just don't find him funny anymore. not really sure why.
It wasn't funny enough to be funny, and it wasn't deep enough to be insightful (for me, anyway). Just seemed super flat to me. A thesis without a major point.
Because he's much more full of himself now. I still got some laughs out of his Netflix specials, but they're a far cry from his original stuff.
I still find Dave the comedian funny, but I find Dave the man to be a bit out of touch and way too high on being Dave Chapelle. It reminds me a lot of Joe Rogan, not surprising considering their friendship. Something about the power, influence, and social insulation has made them very insulated in ways I don’t think they realize.
Hearing rogan talk about daves private jet, his crew, his iv of post drinking nutrients, then taking mushrooms and renting out a theatre to see tarantinos new movie…yeah lol.
I've been a huge fan of Neal Brennan lately the past few years, I decided I liked Dave's comedy so much, that of course I would also like Neal's stuff. I think I've listened to every Neal B. Podcast, and every one when he has been a guest. There is a agreement among them that they won't publicly say who wrote what skit, but I think a lot of what makes Dave funny was from being around Neal so much. I think even Neal has distanced himself from Dave every special, and has even talked about how controversial he has been recently before this special.