Joan, I'll tell a secret if YOU tell a secret...

Joan, according to Irving Berlin's Easter Parade it's "Snookie Ookums", NOT "Snookiewukums"!

That is a very important distinction, and I thought you needed to know about it.

So what secret should I tell to hear yours?

My wife's "nickname" for me is "Newt".

WHY?

I don't know.

The only thing I can figure is that when we first met, I had a freshwater aquarium with several newts abiding there.
Bonita loved to watch those newts swim around, and she particularly loved to see them curled up asleep on the lily pad.

Somehow I got the name Newt.

You could NEVER have guessed it, so there it is.

At the time right after the movie came out and everybody was making a big thing about how much it cost to make, I was flipping channels one late night and I came across one of those financial-interview-type shows that usually only run late at night because only 2 people watch them, and they were talking about the horrendous cost of movies today, and in particular Waterworld. The interviewee (for lack of a better term- I don't remember who he was, some sort of Hollywood financial analyst or something) was saying basically this: at the time that the movie was in production (i.e.-incurring debt to MCA) MCA was owned by Masu****a of Japan. In the intervening time from the completion of the film to when it opened in theatres, MCA and its assets (completed films, music, etc) was sold to Seagrams, LTD of Canada. But not the DEBTS! (production costs, etc). Masu****a kept (did not sell) $300 million in debts. (This was why MCA was sold in the first place-too much debt). Now I don't profess to understand all the machinations of the accounting world and such, but as I watched and listened, it seemed to me that when Waterworld was released, it began life on a level playing field, and not $175 million in the hole. So that whenever that very first person paid their $5 or $6, or whatever, it immediately was in profit. This guy said that this was not something that the public knew and was not intended for public knowledge.
I don't know if this true or not, but if it is, then I suspect that the "leaking" of a movie's budget may be intended as a sympathy? ploy to sway the audience into seeing a movie (so they can make more money)

Just my two cents from where I stand.

NP-Flash Gordon

re: STAR TREK: yes, the first movie's budget DID include all the costs for the aborted TV series that was called "Star Trek II."

re: ISHTAR: hmm ... I don't know quite what to say about Elaine May as a director. Yes, Beatty, as a producer and one of the main stars, DID have the obligation to tell May to knock it off ... but he didn't. I couldn't begin to tell you why, I don't get it myself, although Beatty himself has a rep for overspending (LOVE AFFAIR, anyone?) He let her have her head, and she procrastinated as she always did as a director (it was said of her MIKEY & NICKY, sort of an imitation John Cassavetes movie starring Cassavetes and one of his usual foils, Peter Falk, that she'd be just as happy if she NEVER had to stop editing it -- it took YEARS before the thing was finished and -- barely -- released, and not because it was unwatchable, either. In fact I rather like it. I rather like ISHTAR as well, I actually thought it was hilarious. Oh well.)