The film “Boxing Helena” was the brainchild of 21 year old first time director Jennifer Lynch, daughter of famed director David Lynch. On the heels of the rookie director Steven Soderbergh’s “Sex, Lies and Videotape”, an independent project that garnered tremendous critical and financial success in 1989, studios were seeking offbeat, low budget projects with large financial upside. Regardless of the climate, making commercially viable films is a very inexact science. Seeking to hedge his risk, producer Carl Mazzocone sought to bring bankable actors to the project, reasoning that the draw of veteran actors like Madonna and Ed Harris would enhance the success of the film artistically and financially. When Madonna withdrew from the film, Mazzocone secured agreement with Kim Basinger as a replacement. Kim Basinger’s withdrawal led Mazzocone to seek relief through the court system for profits lost as a result of her breaking a contractual agreement to star in the film. This paper will examine the court hearing, Mainline Films use of domestic and foreign distribution pre-sales agreements, the validity of the companies estimates of lost profit assessments gleaned from Basinger’s participation in the film in their argument, and the resulting jury decision to award Mainline damages in excess of $8 million.
Domestic and Foreign Distribution Agreements
As illustrated by the plaintiff’s attorney, Mainline had secured domestic distribution revenue of $3 million and foreign distribution revenues of $7.6 million based on Basinger’s appearance in the film. When she withdrew from the project, these pre sale agreements dropped significantly in value, to zero domestically and $2.7 million overseas. Should Mainline’s maximum and minimum lost profit estimates by revised downwards on the basis of the domestic distribution pre-sales? As evidenced by the testimony of Mainline’s expert, in estimating damage as a result of Basinger’s withdrawal, domestic distribution revenue markets lack the efficiency of the foreign distribution markets. As such, Mainline’s contentions of lost profit on the basis of domestic distribution revenue pre sold lacks the validity of their contention of loss on the foreign distribution deals, so the lost profit estimates should be revised downward to reflect uncertainty of the domestic pre sales, though the foreign distribution estimates have more accuracy. Mainline’s contention of a $2.1 million loss on the “without Basinger” film is difficult to quantify for the purpose of awarding damages, as the film “with Basinger” was never made.
The Opportunity Cost of Kim Basinger
Following her withdrawal from the film Basinger opted for a role in the movie “Final Analysis”, for which she was paid $3 million. Opportunity costs exist to both actors and film makers in every role or movie they choose to make. Basinger’s choice to appear in the other film for $3 million should be irrelevant in estimating lost profits to Mainline. The one million dollar salary she forfeited from her withdrawal from “Boxing Helena” would have paled in comparison to the opportunities she would have received had the movie been made with her and been a success. In the case of “Sex, Lies and Videotape”, the success of Soderbergh’s movie “made his stars bankable virtually overnight” (Thompson, 1992, ¶ 2). This was a risk Basinger exposed herself to by her withdrawal, and a benefit enjoyed by her replacement, Sherri Lynn Fenn, a TV and B movie actress tabbed as a replacement for Basinger. Mainline used revenue comparisons between Basinger’s films to date and Fenn’s films to date in their damage estimates. These are difficult to validate, as Basinger was a much more established actress at the time of the film than Fenn. No direct evidence that “star power” has a causal relationship to box office success has been universally established, as evidenced by the failure of “Hudson Hawk” a star loaded film that cost $54 million to make and drew $17 million at the box office. The subject matter of “Boxing Helena” was more risky in finding an audience than Batman, by way of example, in estimating box office potential. As such, revenue comparisons between the 27 year old Fenn and 38 year old Basinger lack relevance in estimating lost profits.
Revenue Estimates for the Basinger Version
The plaintiffs expert in the “Boxing Helena” trial refrained from estimating revenues from the “with Basinger” production of the film and focused solely on the diffences in gaps created by her absence in domestic and foreign distribution pre-sales. Strategically, this was a smart move. The pre-sold distribution rights domestically and internationally are guaranteed to the producer regardless of the films box office potential. If the film fails to exceed pre-sold distribution revenue, the producer is not hurt by the shortfall. This makes damage estimates more plausible, as estimates of final box office estimates are difficult to quantify.
Should Mainline’s lost profits be adjusted downward to include an estimate of domestic revenues for the “without Basinger” version of the film? Wilde’s argument for the plaintiff hinged on profit differentials for the two versions of the film’s potential. He contended that beyond pre-sale estimates there would still exist a minimum $5.1 difference of profit between the “with Basinger” and “without Basinger” versions of the film. As such, estimates of domestic revenues for the “without Basinger” film would not impact Mainline’s lost profits on the film. One of the Mainline partners advanced $1.7 million against domestic revenues to help cover production costs. This transaction was made in Basinger’s absence, thus it would not contribute to estimates of Mainline’s profit loss as a result of her withdrawal as these production costs would be paid had she not withdrawn from the movie.
Profit Assessments
Had Basinger remained with the film and the producers enjoyed the $3 million profit estimated by its experts in minimum damage assessments, Mainline would not have netted this sum in its entirety. Generally accepted accounting principles dictate that film producers amortize film costs at a rate equivalent to estimated lifetime revenues. The increase in revenue of $3 million in the first year would be hedged in their tax position by an increase in expense amortization for the film’s production costs.
The Jury Assessment
Ultimately, Mainline and producer Carl Mazzocone were awarded by the jury $7,421,694 in damages for loss of profit associated with Basinger’s contract breach, and an additional $1.5 million as penalty for bad faith denial of the contract. Since Mainline had secured $7.6 million in foreign presale commitments under a highly functional market, and they were able to establish that domestic distribution pre-sales are co-related at approximately one to one with foreign, the amount is reasonable. They had a reasonable estimate of a guaranteed $15.2 million in revenue from distribution, less the production cost of the film. Budget estimates of “Boxing Helena” were between $5 and $7 million without Basinger (Thompson, 1992, figure 36), and her appearance would have raised production costs just on salary $1.3 million, the difference between the Basinger/Harris $1.5 million salary and the Sand/Fenn salaries of $200,000. Using an average budget cost based on estimates at $6 million, plus the salary differential of $1.3 million, the film would have generated revenue to the producers based on pre-sold distribution rights of $15.2 million less the producers cost of the ‘with Basinger” film of $7.6 million, for a difference of $7.6 million. Without raising the questions of “should the film have even been made” and “what would revenues looked like had the film been better”, the jury damages awarded reflect a degree of fairness as a levy for Basinger’s failure to fulfill her contractual obligation.
Reference
Thompson, A. (1992, July 5). Film; The Ins and Outs of Boxing Helena. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE0D8123EF936A35754C0A964958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
Comparison/Contrast Of Energy Sources
Energy: Nuclear Fusion, Hydroelectric, and Hydrogen Fuel Cells In today’s world, where everyone owns an electronic appliance, energy is an extremely valuable resource and in high demand. Though in the past this energy was provided by burning fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, this way of providing energy can’t last much longer due to the dwindling amount of fossil fuels and the damage it causes to the environment. Therefore, scientists have been searching for new ways of providing energy. They hoped to find inexpensive and eco-friendly sources.
Some of those solutions include hydroelectric energy, hydrogen fuel cells, and nuclear fusion. Hydroelectric energy is a reliable and easy to obtain source of energy. In order to produce energy, all that is required is flowing water. Since much of the world is covered by rivers, oceans, lakes, and many other bodies of water, hydroelectric energy is a very plausible replacement for fossil fuels. Energy is obtained through the use of a dam on a river or pumped storage facilities. hoover Dam – located on the colorado river
A hydroelectric dam is used on decent sized rivers that have a drop in elevation; both of these conditions have to be met in order for a dam to be very productive. The reservoir behind the dam itself will hold an insurmountable amount of water and pressure that push on the dam. At the bottom of the dam is an intake opening that allows the pressurized water to flow through. The pressure of the water above will push water through this opening at a very quick pace. The flow of water will run through a turbine and spin it before flowing out on the other side of the dam.
The turbine is connected to a generator above by a generator shaft. As the turbine is spinning, it is providing the mechanical energy needed to run the generator, which, in turn, is transforming the mechanical energy into electricity through the use of magnets. Pumped storage facilities are based on the same principles, including the turbines and generators, as hydroelectric dams. It takes water from an elevated position and runs it through a turbine which then runs the generator creating the electricity. However, the pumped storage facility is not run by a river.
Instead, the facility is attached to either a lake or reservoir. The facility will pump water up to an elevated position and then, when needed, will allow it to flow back down in order to create the electricity needed. The hydroelectric dams can be run around the clock for twenty-four hours a day. They are able to do this because rivers never stop flowing. However, the pumped storage facilities are only able to run only for a limited time until the water storage runs out. Yet, this is not a bad thing. The main reason for a pumped storage facility is to be used for peak hours of the day when the most electricity is consumed.
Therefore, the storage areas are large enough to hold enough water to get through those hours. There are no waste products when using hydroelectric energy. The only element used is water and water is the only product. Plus, the water remains as part of the river and can supply towns and farms further down the river with nutrients in the water. However, the dams can also cause problems. The dams create reservoirs behind them as the river builds up over time. These reservoirs may prove to cause problems for lots of people and the surrounding area. Reservoirs may become too large and flood nearby towns.
The people of those towns have to be relocated and compensated for by the company that built the dam. The dam will also stop the natural flow of the river. It causes the water to become stagnant and the minerals and nutrients in the water will build up over time at the bottom of the dam. The farms down river will stop receiving the nutrients from the water and their products will suffer. Also, the stagnant water can become a disease infested place and cause small scale epidemics. These are some of the prices to pay for taping into the energy located in water.
Another price to pay is the actual cost for the dam to be built. Dams, since they are built to last and are meant to withstand the pressure of a pent up river, have to be built with the latest technologies and strongest material. This makes them very expensive, more expensive in short term than many other energy sources. Much of the money is spent on the design, materials, and construction of the dam. Designing the dam should be taken seriously, because a dam that is poorly built may break and lead to a flood occurring in towns downstream. However, they eventually pay off after many years of running.
It is very easy and cost efficient for a dam to be run, since the water is supplied by the river and only repairs and maintenance are required for them to be ran. Since they are eco-friendly, they also don’t receive many fines or have to redesign very often which saves them a lot of money. Hydrogen fuel cells are also proving to be very useful sources of energy on much smaller scales than the hydroelectric dams. Hydrogen fuel cells are essentially batteries. They contain a cathode, anode, and an electrolyte. However, a fuel cell contains different chemicals than a regular battery.
The two elements needed for a hydrogen fuel cell to work are hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen gas (H2) is passed through the anode where it is ionized and stripped of its electrons. The hydrogen ions, essentially just protons, pass through the electrolyte to the cathode. The electrolyte is a major part of the fuel cell. Electrolytes can be many different types including alkali, molten carbonate, phosphoric acid, proton exchange membrane (PEM) and solid oxide. No matter which material it is, the electrolyte only allows for the ionized hydrogen to pass through it.
This makes the stripped electrons flow down through the wire providing electricity to the needed appliance. Then the electrons will travel in a circuit to the cathode end of the battery. There, the electrons will combine with the hydrogen ions and oxygen, mixed in with the surrounding air, to form water. The water is then able to be expelled from the battery and is completely safe to the environment. Hydrogen fuel cells can be used at anytime so long as hydrogen and oxygen are present. Therefore, all that is needed primarily for a hydrogen fuel cell is hydrogen; since, there is oxygen in all the air around us.
They are mostly designed so they can power small appliances and cars. Today, there are several car designs that have been made to use the hydrogen fuel cell. The fuel cell was also used on the Apollo spacecraft to power the ship’s life support systems. It is very useful on small scales; however, it has trouble being used as a design idea for power plants. These hydrogen fuel cells are very beneficial to the environment. The only product created from running hydrogen fuel cells is water. The environment is in no other way affected. There is plenty of oxygen in the air for the hydrogen fuel cell to use without causing any major disturbance.
Also, the elements needed for a fuel cell to be run occur around us naturally. They are not located below the earth’s surface where miners have to dig for them or they need to be drilled for. This makes them very accessible. However, fuel cells are very expensive. The electrolyte and the tips on the anode and cathode can be made of expensive material. One hydrogen fuel cell was made using platinum tips for the cathode and anode and made the fuel cell very expensive. Though the initial cost is pricey, the fuel cell pays for itself afterwards. There is no charge for using the surrounding oxygen and, if need be, hydrogen is asily obtained for a small price. Whereas when gas and other fuels run out, you have to pay a great deal of money to get them refilled. A viable new source of energy is nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion is able to provide energy through the combining of two nuclei of different isotopes of an element. Once the overall repulsion of the positive forces is overcome, the two “light” nuclei combine together to form a “heavy” nucleus and a displaced neutron. This process results in a massive amount of energy released. Nuclear fusion is done by combining the nuclei of two hydrogen isotopes, deuterium and tritium.
The isotopes are the same as hydrogen, as they both have one proton in the nucleus; however, deuterium has a single neutron and tritium has two neutrons in their nuclei. The isotopes are pushed together through the use of immense heat. The temperature needed to have nuclear fusion is about the same temperature of the sun, approximately 40 million degrees Fahrenheit. At this temperature, the hydrogen isotopes are contained in a plasma state. They are then able to fuse together to create a helium nucleus (He) that has two protons and two neutrons and a lone neutron.
Both the nucleus and neutron maintain a great amount of excess energy that can be harnessed and put to use. Other elements could be used to run nuclear fusion. However, the temperature needed to combine those elements’ nuclei would be even higher than that of hydrogen, due to a greater repulsive force of more protons pushing away from each other. It is also easy to obtain the hydrogen isotopes of deuterium and tritium. Deuterium is abundant in seawater and, since seawater covers almost 70 percent of the earth’s surface, is very easily obtained. Tritium can be formed from the element lithium.
Lithium is a main component of the earth’s crust and can be transformed into tritium quickly and efficiently. The materials needed for nuclear fusion are readily available; yet, the process either yields a low percent yield or can’t be completed. Even with today’s technology, it is hard to fuse the hydrogen isotopes together. This is due to the immense temperature needed for the nuclei to overcome the repulsive nature of the protons. There are two methods that have proven to be able to contain a nuclear fusion, the magnetic confinement and inertial confinement.
The temperature of the plasma is so great that no container on earth can contain it without melting away. Therefore, the magnetic confinement of the plasma is used to keep the plasma in a hovering magnetic field. Since, the plasma is not touching the container it can’t burn through it. This allows for the temperature to be increased steadily and for a long sustainable reaction. The Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor at Princeton uses magnetic confinement. It is a large circle that uses the magnets to propel the plasma in a circle while keeping it suspended using the magnetic field.
The Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor was able to produce a 65 percent yield input energy during a fusion reaction and is the closet to actually producing a nuclear fusion which will exceed the energy input. Inertial confinement is almost the exact opposite of magnetic confinement. It is meant to produce the nuclear fusion so rapidly that the nuclei do not have any time to move away from each other. Since the fusion is done so quickly, there is no need to contain the plasma state because it will last only a billionth of a second for it to be completed.
This is achievable because of lasers and their ability to deliver extreme amounts of energy in a short time frame. Two sets of lasers were built to maintain a nuclear fusion, the Shiva and Nova Laser Systems. The Nova Laser System was able to achieve Lawson criterion, but failed to reach the needed temperature to initiate fusion. Unlike its counterpart, nuclear fission, nuclear fusion is a very clean and eco-friendly source of energy. After fusion takes place, there is no radioactive material to dispose of or contain, but only the element helium that was created by the fusion.
Helium occurs naturally and is perfectly harmless to the environment. Nuclear fusion does not affect the environment in any other besides through the use of the reactants, deuterium and tritium obtained from seawater and lithium, and the product of helium. If nuclear fusion occurs for many hundreds to thousands of years, the amount of seawater and lithium used to supply the reaction may decrease and cause serious events. However, for the present time, nuclear fusion is completely safe to the environment.
This process can be used at anytime and anywhere, so long as you can create the temperatures needed and have the ability to contain the plasma and extract the energy. Therefore, nuclear fusion is only done in reactors and there are very few in the world that can even contain a fusion. However, a fusion that has produced a 100 percent yield of energy input has not occurred yet. This is the result of having to put too much energy into the process of reaching the fusion ignition temperature that the fusion itself is not large enough to even account for that energy.
The cost of nuclear fusion is tremendous. It is astronomical compared to other energy sources. However, it is kind of like the lottery, if you don’t pay a lot, don’t expect to win a lot. Though nuclear fusion is extremely expensive now, if able to be properly done, it will be able to supply the world with energy for many years, upwards of hundreds to even thousands with just the energy from fusion alone. Fusion may be expensive now, but could lead to a future with more energy and less money being paid for it.
Obesity: David Zinczenko And Radley Balko Points Of View
Heather Cope- Vates November 15, 2010 Essay 5 Easy Weight! Have you ever count how many fast food restaurants there are in your area? Have you ever think of the consequences of what you are feeding your children? I, myself never paid attention to this before reading these articles. I have noticed them and understand these articles more clearly. In this essay, I will argue that both David Zinczenko, and Radley Balko make valid points. I agree with both men on each subject. Being a single mother, I can relate to David Zinczenko.
He wrote the article “Don’t Blame the Eater”. It is easier for me to stop at a fast food restaurant, rather than cook dinner after school. Also, I can relate to Radley Balko, “What you eat is your business”. Since I am responsible for the food I feed the boys. In the article “Don’t Blame the Eater” by David Zinczenko. Mr. Zinczenko argues that fast food is to blame for American children’s obesity problems. He believes that because he was an overweight kid, and was from a broken home.
He had to fend for himself, while his mother was at work. Although he turned his weight problem around, most children will not. The fast food advertising, the prevalence, eases ,and availability of fast foods compares to healthier choices. Zinczenko suggests that the relatively low cost of fast food tips the scales in the fast food chains favor. These children don’t know what they are eating due to the fact that there are not any warning labels on the package. Then Zinczenko goes into explaining how children’s diabetes in on the rise. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention estimate the diabetes accounted for $2. 6 billion in health care cost in 1969. Today’s number is an unbelievable $100 billion a Year”(154) I agree with most of what David Zinczenko is saying. We all look for an easier way to feed our children. Majority of Americans have both parents working, and no one wants to come home and make dinner every night. I disagree with him on that there are not many alternatives to eating fast food, I believe we are turning into a lazy society.
There are not many family structures any longer. The parents should make fast food a treat like it was when I was grew up. Now when you mention McDonalds to my children, there is no excitement or joy, it has become an everyday food to them now. I do not think anyone should sue McDonald’s due to your child being obese; people should take responsibly for their actions. These establishments did not come to our houses; we choose to drive to them. We all have choices and we seem to be choosing the wrong one according to the statistics.
In the article “What You Eat Is Your Business” by Radley Balko. Balko states that due to consumer’s idiocy and inability to choose healthy alternatives to fast food, government intervention is the only way that America can combat obesity. He disagrees with this course of action and argues that individual responsibly is the correct way to achieve this goal. He emphasizes that government’s place is to educate and empower the people to make good choices, rather than to enact laws that force people, food companies, and insurance companies to act more responsible.
He implies that obesity is not a public health crisis, “The best way to alleviate the obesity “public health” crisis is to remove obesity from the realm of public health” (159) In “What You Eat Is Your Business”, I totally agree with Radley Balko that people choose to eat what they eat; it is not the government’s responsibility, or anyone else except for the consumer. I find it hard to believe that the government wants all Americans to pay for obesity. People make choices and should deal with the consequences; higher rates are not going to help anyone.
Everyone should not be punished for mistakes of others, we all have choices in life, but please understand while I empathize with child obesity, I cannot comprehend how society feels the need to blame someone else. Like Radley Balko, I feel we should free up healthcare and put the money into our own accounts. It’s like a reward for making better choices with our lives. Radley Balko writes, “When money we spend on health care doesn’t belong to our employer or the government, but is the money we could devote to our retirement, we are less likely to run to the doctors at the first sign of a cold. (160) I agree with this totally, everyone is looking for any easy answer these days. However, do not misread me. Obesity is a growing problem in America, although, I agree with David Zinczenko points. I understand where Radley Balko is coming from as well. We are becoming less responsible for our own health and more responsible for other people’s health. We all can make a healthy choice about excising, and eating right when someone else is not footing the bill. We should not have to force people into taking responsibility, or be force to take responsibly for them.
You should not be allowed to sue anybody for your mistakes. But, if you must sue someone, sue your parents for being uneducated about the dangers of eating fast food daily. ?
Works Sited Zinczenko, David. “Don’t Blame the Eater. ” They Say I Say with Reading. Ed. Gerald Graft, Cathy Birkensten, and Russel Durst. New York: Norton, 2009. Works Sited Balko, Radley. “What You Eat Is Your Business. ” They Say I Say with Reading. Ed. Gerald Graft, Cathy Birkensten, and Russel Durst. New York: Norton, 2009.