[Madison]

Originally posted by Kyle Fenton
I really don't want to get into numbers, nor do I really care. Without getting too off-topic here, a majority of movies do all right, but some accumulate a loss. The big blockbusters like T3, Finding Nemo, Matrix, etc. usually has a high profit margin that the producers usually use that profit to cover the debt from other non-successful movies.

I'm sure that if you showed some numbers, you'd see that you're wrong. Domestic annual box office grosses have increased over $6B since 1982. When adjusted for inflation, newer movies aren't making more than older movies, so that simply means more people are going to the movies. If more people are going, and the annual grosses are up $6B, it's pretty safe draw a conclusion that suggests most movies make money. But, whatever.

I disagree with you however on that a movie/tv/other media is bad for FIRST. I believe it is good for FIRST, and if it was watched by a good majority of people, it would expose them to what FIRST is.

It would expose them to some media mogul's idea of what FIRST is, or what Colgate thinks FIRST is, or any other of the myriad advertisers who keep television free.

So, then, what do you do? You can make a documentary for HBO or something that significantly less people will see, but it can keep true to FIRST's mission.

There's a sacrifice that needs to be made for FIRST to achieve massive media coverage. It's a choice between staying true to our roots and ourselves, or listening to the input and demands of the people who're forking over their money to get us coverage. Surely, you've seen how the producers of other 'reality TV' shows manipulate the footage to create the most mouth-watering, interesting hour of television that they possibly can. Well, what makes you think that FIRST is immune? In the world of television and movies, nobody is immune to creative editing. Nobody.

So, then, that leads us down another path, doesn't it? If FIRST gets a special, or movie, or even a series, and if FIRST is willing to relinquish the control it has over its image to spread itself around the masses, are those people really seeing the same FIRST that we know? I'd argue that they're not. The changes that would take place in order to make a presentation about what we're doing interesting and palatable to the masses that we're pandering to would mean, in essence, that we're falsely advertising our product.

Then, don't you risk attracting people to the program who have no idea what it really is? I'm not sure that extra exposure would end up being a positive thing at all.

You have to remember that the average guy doesn't know much outside of what he sees on TV.

I think you're selling the average guy a little bit short.

Everytime I do a demonstration of FIRST with my team, I always get some reference to Battlebots by a person who wants to know more information about it. Even when I try to explain it to a couple of strangers briefly, they still think it is some kind of Battlebots. Know why, because that is what they see on TV.

Well, that's not at all because of television or Battlebots or anything like that. It's because you're talking to them. You may be demonstrating your robot, even, but it's entirely out of context. You're not showing these people what FIRST is, you're lecturing them about it.

That's precisely why I believe that the best, most reliable method of getting people interested in this program is by showing it to them at its glory. It means making our event in Atlanta something far more engaging and interesting and welcoming than just another large convention.

Do you think it's unusual for huge groups of people to hold events in the Georgia World Congress Center or the GeorgiaDome? Do you think the people of metro-Atlanta are completely desensitized to throngs of tourists and convention-goers wandering about their city? They're not going to show interest based solely on our presence. We need to welcome them and bring them into the folds of the FIRST experience by showing them, in person, what it is.

Maybe I'm weird about this, but I've never, ever, in my life, wandered into some convention that I wasn't supposed to be attending. Have you?

FIRST has a long, long way to go in making these events welcoming and interesting to the uninterested, uninitiated masses. Once they've accomplished roping in those folks who're *right there* they should focus on getting the attention of those people who're even more distant to the competition.

FIRST has the disadvantage of other sports in the fact is that the average person, that is not in FIRST, doesn't know what the heck FIRST is.

I also disagree with you that a feature film movie on FIRST would be boring. There have been many movies about sports/clubs in a one person narrative that have been successful[/b]

Movies about what, exactly? Football? Baseball? Hockey?

I can't recall a successful movie about the trials and tribulations of curling or pole-climbing, but my sports movie trivia is probably a bit lacking.

It seems that, given your first statement above, you'd agree that FIRST has more in common with curling than it does hockey, right? FIRST isn't as ubiquitous and well known as hockey, for certain, and a new game each year sure does make picking up on the rules a bit harder. Curling, on the other hand, has an awareness, but most people just don't know what it is. They don't know how it's played, how it's scored, what skill is required to be successful, or anything like that. Do you think a movie about curling could be successful at the box office?

I don't.