Jump to content
MadonnaNation.com Forums


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About discohub

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Favorite Madonna Song

Recent Profile Visitors

161 profile views
  1. I don't know. Boy Toy manages her music royalties so they'll be around pretty much anything she releases with her music on it. There is a (c) Boy Toy Inc on the 93 99 video collection cover, but it doesn't mean Boy Toy is the owner, they might have licensed the videos for the release. Boy Toy is not mentioned on the Celebration video cover. "Promotional" music videos and tour videos are two very different things, production-wise. She produces her own shows, we know there is a vault somewhere with her every single gigs.
  2. The videos are fully available for you to buy.
  3. Maybe. M is older than all of us and we still have to learn from her, not the other way round 😜
  4. Well, that's because you believe that YouTube is the alpha and the omega of the digital age but it isn't. Websites come and go. 10 years ago, people were angry that only 5 tracks of hers were on Myspace. Relevance? M is relevant no matter the medium. And I really don't think that a carefully edited YouTube channel would make her more popular or whatever, people go on YouTube for Shakira and Selena Gomez videos.
  5. She makes more money selling the videos every once in a while in boxsets or whatever commercial product. Never forget she is one of the smartest business women in the industry. And once again, it's not hers only to decide.
  6. Music artists, especially the older ones, didn't always have full rights on their videos because it didn't bring enough royalties as compared to radio airplay. Back in the 80s, videos were promotional material, not revenue per se. Madonna has full control on the audio masters and it made her VERY rich, but not on the video masters. It's probably a total mess about who owns what and who'd fight for her entire video catalog to be on YouTube. Same goes with MJ, Janet, Kylie... Not even talking about Bowie and Prince. Warner has always been very strict about it and they'd rather try and sell video tapes and DVDs than release videos on YouTube. Moreover, it is very well known that YouTube pays much less than other streaming services (Tidal and Apple music being the most generous), so the idea of going all YouTube is not always a very good business plan. Unlike contemporary pop stars who will fight for any kind of exposure, M doesn't need it, her music gets played anyway, her shows sell out anyway and she doesn't need to break views on YouTube to prove anything to her public or her bank account.
  7. I meant that movie musicals were not really a thing producers would bet on in the 1990s (the 1980s had some hits, and also major failures). Having Madonna star on the film was part gamble because she had never had a true box office success on her name (and "Body Of Evidence" had happened a few years ago so she wasn't the safest bet), part clever because it would bring a different audience to theaters, not only traditional movie-goers. And yes, it was expensive for a musical movie, because of the multiple locations, costumes, extras etc. In comparison : Alan Parker's "The Commitments" (1991) : $12-15M "Sister Act" (1992) budget was around $30M. "Everybody Says I Love You" (1996) budget : $20M. After "Evita", Palme d'Or winner, "Dancer In The Dark" (2000) cost around $12M. Big musical reconstitutions, like "Chicago" and "Moulin Rouge!" had comparable budgets but were more profitable in the end.
  8. Exactly, the musical movies revival happened later in the 2000s In the 1990s, producers were still struggling to make it work on screen. Evita was a costly experience on its own.
  9. Damn, I keep forgetting poor Elaine Paige.
  10. I'd do bad things to hang out with those two. I remember reading an article where they talked about each other (or was it just M praising Patti Smith ?). They've been friends since the early NY days. They take mutual advice from time to time. They both have a deep and sincere love for the arts, photography. 2 female icons so different that broke so many taboos and changed the world. And they're bonded, that fascinates me. Ultimate girl power.
  11. Interesting point of view. Not sure about the facts here though. Chicago & Moulin Rouge happened 5 or 6 years later. In between, a couple of musicals were shot but flopped hard or were released direct-to-video (Cats, Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, both being Lloyd Weber musicals) Evita's box office gross was : $141,047,179 (Moulin Rouge : $179,213,434 / Chicago : $306,776,732, source : http://www.boxofficemojo.com) If you're going that way, you have to admit that hadn't Patti LuPone brought success and audiences to like Evita, the movie would have NEVER happened years later. It's not all thanks to her, but there she was, the first to play her on stage. (Keep in mind that Broadway hits are a matter of production and casting, it's team work unlike pop records who put the spotlight almost exclusively on the performer) Not trying to defend her, again, I'm just trying to be fair. Please read me carefully : if the original Broadway production had flopped, Evita would be just another forgotten musical. That's just what I tried to say from the beginning.
  12. That is so true. Diva catfights will happen. Remember M vs Mariah. Remember Gaga vs M. Remember Mariah vs JLo. Remember Cindy Lauper vs M. Remember Prince vs MJ. It even goes back to... Remember Bette Davis vs Joan Crawford. That's show business. It's part fun, part ridiculous, part spontaneous, part fabricated. It's a matter of maturity, insecurity, provocation. It's a game too. In the end, I don't think these people, living or dead, care that much. It's all about posture. It's camp. It's media time. It's a TV show no one outside the US cares about. (Not a single news outlet reported this "event" in France). Don't fall into their trap and overreact. Moreover, apart from the very unpleasant welcome some of you gave me, I'm deeply puzzled by the level of hate and the VERY nasty comments on Patti LuPone's looks, voice, carreer, etc. The woman was answering a question, she said what she thought with her words, like it or not. She is a professional, she is entitled to her opinion, as useless as it is. But to come with pathetic, disgusting, demeaning, VERY disrespectful words, this thread is like the worst comments of YouTube about M (she old, she ugly, quit the grillz, behave, surgery addict, baby whales killer, she buys children, she fucks teenagers, blabla) except it's about somebody else. Really? M deserves better. Of course it's a Madonna forum, so people here will root for her, but I thought people would dust their shoulders and laugh about it. It's not the first time anyone criticizes the queen, not the last time. How come you call 911 when someone tries to scratch M's toe ? And, there is something going on about the SuperBowl I'm not aware of. Never heard or read anything bad about that show. Maybe someone somewhere decided they didn't like it ? Get over it. Too bad for them, it was grand.
  13. I guess M doesn't own the rights all to herself. Alan Parker, Hollywood Pictures, Buena Vista probably have more rights on the video masters. That's all there is.