I disagree, the title was perfect. In case you missed it, Max Baer calls Braddock that term late in the movie. I just looked at the Box Office and yer right, it didn't make enough money to cover the budget but then you are dealing with Hollywood so they "juggle" the books, for example, even though it looks like it lost money, it's been on TV for 10 years and I watch it every time its on. So, there are plenty of sponsors lining up to air it.
Its simply one of my fave movies of all times. The casting was excellent, Ron Howards direction was beautifully executed. And the music wasn't bad.
Back to Hollywood "bookkeeping", I read once where they can make it look like ANY movie loses money, something about how they treat overseas box offices, they must run the money through an overseas organization or some other part of the parent company, I mean Apple does it too. It's called a "Double Irish With A Dutch Sandwich", and basically it's a way to legally avoid paying the punitive U.S. rate of about 35% that corporations have to pay on overseas earnings, but instead they maneuver the cash so that they end up paying the Irish rate of taxes which I believe is around 10% after first routing the profits through a subsidiary in the Netherlands, then back to Ireland. Its all legal because of quirks in all 3 nations tax laws. And the U.S. Congress is always adding pages to the 1,000s of pages of tax laws and lately there's been talk of "coercing" some big companies, again Apple comes to mind since they have something like $178 billion (they alone are richer than 141 countries), to lower the 35% tax rate, just for the overseas cash, and tax it lower to intice these companies to bring it home. That would generate 1,000s of new jobs because we're talking about 100s of companies.
Didn't want to get off on a tangent, but look closer when you see a "loss" on a box office.
reply
share