<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Poor Hollywood: trapped between the devil of marketing and a deep blue sea of capital</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cultureby.com/2006/07/poor_hollywood_.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cultureby.com/2006/07/poor_hollywood_.html</link>
	<description>This Blog Sits At the Intersection of Anthropology and Economics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:43:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter</title>
		<link>http://cultureby.com/2006/07/poor_hollywood_.html/comment-page-1#comment-4251</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Jul 2006 16:51:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=656#comment-4251</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the compliment, Grant (at least, I assume it&#039;s a compliment!)
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the compliment, Grant (at least, I assume it&#8217;s a compliment!)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: steve</title>
		<link>http://cultureby.com/2006/07/poor_hollywood_.html/comment-page-1#comment-4250</link>
		<dc:creator>steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Jul 2006 17:39:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=656#comment-4250</guid>
		<description>I am aware of no evidence that movies in particular budget ranges predictably do better or worse in terms of box office, much less ROI. This is not my area of expertise, but the work of Art de Vany, which I have cited here frequently, shows that 1) the box office performance of films follows statistics where the mean is much less than the variance, so outliers tend to drive things, and that 2) no one can predict very well which films will do well by looking at budgets, actors, directors, etc. William Goldman was right--&quot;No one knows anything.&quot;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am aware of no evidence that movies in particular budget ranges predictably do better or worse in terms of box office, much less ROI. This is not my area of expertise, but the work of Art de Vany, which I have cited here frequently, shows that 1) the box office performance of films follows statistics where the mean is much less than the variance, so outliers tend to drive things, and that 2) no one can predict very well which films will do well by looking at budgets, actors, directors, etc. William Goldman was right&#8211;&#8221;No one knows anything.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob</title>
		<link>http://cultureby.com/2006/07/poor_hollywood_.html/comment-page-1#comment-4249</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Jul 2006 12:01:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=656#comment-4249</guid>
		<description>Test
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Test</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

