Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mdcbbs!devsim.mdcbbs!jmi
From: jmi@devsim.mdcbbs.com (JM Ivler - MDC - Douglas Aircraft - Long Beach, CA)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: REVISED CHARTER for rec.arts.cinema
Message-ID: <512.25a7b6dd@devsim.mdcbbs.com>
Date: 7 Jan 90 21:38:37 GMT
References: <7261@shlump.nac.dec.com>
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: McDonnell Douglas M&E, Cypress CA
Lines: 18

In article <3183@cbnewsj.ATT.COM> ecl@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:

} One issue not covered is whether made-for-television (including
} made-for-cable) films are included.
> 
} [...] would argue that made-for-television films [...] belong in
} rec.arts.cinema and r.a.m(.r).

Consider, if you will, BUCK ROGERS (the TV show). The producers were asked to
prove the show would generate income, so they released the pilot as a movie. It
was successful enough to have the nutworks (that is *not* a typo) agree to pick
up the show (production costs were quite high on it).

Would discussion of this fall into R.A.C or R.A.TV ? If there was ever a fine
line, I think that this is an example of one. This definitely firms my resolve
on moderation, but would the moderator permit this? Does this belong?
   
JMI jmi@devsim.mdcbbs.com [std. pithy disclaimer]