Knight and Day one of the worst films to pass $200m Worldwide - Knight and Day (2010) Discussion

[–] hashmanis 15 years ago

bouncies

What a load of L Ron Hubbard!!!

reply

[–] Steppy412 15 years ago

All those people that invested 125 million and received (to date) over 200 million in return must be very upset! Ha Ha!
Looking at your link - box office mojo - I noticed that TC is near the top in terms of lifetime total. It's funny how the website that you refer to in criticizing him lists how successful he is. You might want to look at the whole story before you come to a conclusion. Just saying...

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jstang411 15 years ago

All those people that invested 125 million and received (to date) over 200 million in return must be very upset! Ha Ha!

Steppy -- you do realize that those investors don't get back one dollar for every dollar from the box office?

It's actually more like half, less on the foreign gross. And then there is marketing expense, which probably came to at least 50% of the production budget. I'd be glad to explain more about hoe it works if you would like (not that I have all the answers).

reply

[–] hashmanis 15 years ago

Dear Steppy.

Consider this. Let us say you owned a chain of cinemas. According to you, the studio comes up to you and offers you their latest film. In return, you give the studio your entire gross takings for that film. As the owner of the cinema chain, you have to pay for rates, taxes, cleaning, maintenance, equipment, staff and advertising your chain of theatres and this cost is your burden.

So basically you as the cinema owner will be bankrupt by the end of your first day of business.

The cinema owners take out their share of the takings. It averages out over a 13 week film cycle to equate to 50%. In foreign markets the studio takes less as they also have to pay foreign taxes on what they earn. No country is going to stand for money to leave the country like that.

So basically from its $200m world wide, the film has barely recovered 100mill to the studio. Add to the production budget the cost of marketing the film world wide and you have what accountants call a loss.

What a load of L Ron Hubbard!!!

reply

[–] Steppy412 15 years ago

@hashmanis

Ever worked at a movie theater? By "worked", I mean own/operate, or upper management (not selling popcorn or sweeping the floors..etc). The theater gets only a portion of the ticket price (on a $9 ticket, they keep, maybe $4, the rest goes to whoever owns the movie). Those that operate theaters make the vast majority of their profits from concessions (that $5 popcorn - it's about 6 cents in product, up to 10/11 cents with packaging, the soda you paid $4.50 for? 8 cents in product, maybe 5 cents in packaging - with straw and lid, the rest goes to the theater). So after you paid $9 ticket, $5 popcorn and $4.50 soda, the theater has received roughly $14. Sure, there are overhead costs - staff, rent, insurance, electricity - comes out to about $1 per ticket. Maybe $2 for high cost areas. Now they are down to $12 in receipts per person. Maybe only half of the patrons buy popcorn/soda, so let's say $6 per person (we'll ignore those people that buy soda, popcorn, jujubees/snowcaps, and nachos/hot dogs etc.
I wouldn't worry about theater operators.

I don't know that much about what it costs to make a movie. One would assume that the 125 million included actors/directors/production fees, technical costs, catering/lodging during filming, writers/editors ...etc. One would assume that marketing costs would also be figured into the overall costs. Even if not, are you trying to say they spent over 75 million dollars to market this film? If so, you are too ridiculous to acknowledge.

A big deal was made about TC not receiving full payment up front, but only after all investors had recouped their money. So regardless of the costs, everyone gets their money back first. Most normal people don't rush out to see movies upon release. I just saw it the other day. Although my ticket hasn't been counted, it will. So will the money paid by the other 50 people in the theater with me (we were at ONE of shows that day, out of 6 total - at one of the 800 theaters showing it that day).

Relax. I think the movie industry will manage to go on without your comments or concerns.

reply

[–] hashmanis 15 years ago

'One would assume that marketing costs would also be figured into the overall costs. Even if not, are you trying to say they spent over 75 million dollars to market this film? If so, you are too ridiculous to acknowledge. '

Marketing is not part of the production budget. Allow me to show you why.

Lets say a TV commercial costs about $10,000 to air (I am really under cutting it here. For some shows a spot can cost up to $100,000 and probably average at $25,000). But we will use ten for ease of calculation. Let us also say that spots are bought in batches and lets say they bought the cheap 25 spots on a commercial network in the US. Thats just for the US and on one network that covers the US and is offering very cheap rates would cost $250,000. Now. There are 60 odd countries and terrioties and all those will also need the same ad on their channels and stations and lets assume that they only have 2 networks each.

So for the cheapie run of 25 ads for each country on two channels each country costs

10,000 (cost of showing spot) * 25 (number of spots) * 2(two networks a country) * 60 (assuming only 60 countries) = 30mill (and thats a cheap run).

Lets say the cost of the spot cost 20,000. That would make the advertisng at 60 mill. Lets say some countries have 4 networks. Thats a big increase again.

Now lets go back to the US and there are 50 states in the US and as far as I know several channels. Then the cost for advertising goes up again.

Sorry friend. You dont include marketing in the production budget.

What a load of L Ron Hubbard!!!

reply

[–] hashmanis 15 years ago

Oh! I havent done the ads for radio and print media!

What a load of L Ron Hubbard!!!

reply

[–] Steppy412 15 years ago

@hashmanis

I just read an article that said the average spent on P&A (for the 6 major studios) is 37 million - down from a high of 39.5 million in 2003.

"Last year, Nielsen estimates that of the $26.5 million in media spent on the opening weekend of a 2,000- to 5,000-screen release, 80% went to network, cable and spot TV buys."
(from HW Reporter)

Even if promotions/advertising costs were 60 million, added to 125 - still comes out to 185 million. That still comes out to 16 million on the positive.

reply

[–] JaneDoe872 15 years ago

Even if promotions/advertising costs were 60 million, added to 125 - still comes out to 185 million. That still comes out to 16 million on the positive.

Oh brother.

Ask yourself a question.....do you think the theater owners show films for free?? OF COURSE NOT!! Come on.

They take between 30-70% of the box office depending on what's been negotiated and whether it's domestic or international. That averages out to approx 50% of the box office hence if Knight and Day has made 200 million in the box office, only approx 100 million is profit.

In case you're as horrendous at math as you are at knowledge of the movie industry, that means K & D is still 85 million (by your numbers) in the red.

Geez.....if you don't believe me, do some research or ask anyone on the board. Even the most uninformed person knows everything made at the box office is not profit. It also happens to be common sense....something you and your socks seem not to have.

http://forum.exscn.net/index.php

reply

[–] hashmanis 15 years ago

'@hashmanis

I just read an article that said the average spent on P&A (for the 6 major studios) is 37 million - down from a high of 39.5 million in 2003.

"Last year, Nielsen estimates that of the $26.5 million in media spent on the opening weekend of a 2,000- to 5,000-screen release, 80% went to network, cable and spot TV buys."
(from HW Reporter)

Even if promotions/advertising costs were 60 million, added to 125 - still comes out to 185 million. That still comes out to 16 million on the positive.
'

Wait a minute. Didnt you agree that of the box office takings the owner will keep close to 50%? So if the film had a takings of 200 mill world wide, the studio itself only gets $100mill of that.

So they spent upto $185mill and recouped $100. How is that a win?

What a load of L Ron Hubbard!!!

reply

[–] Steppy412 15 years ago

no

reply

[–] AgentSP 15 years ago

So Steppy---you honestly think that movie theaters show movies and pay employees and pay mortgages and utilities to keep everything going, just because they're nice????

Where, exactly, do you think THIER money comes from?

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hashmanis 15 years ago

You said of a $9 dollar ticket the theatre owner gets maybe $4. I would say 4.5, but even if we say the studio gets 55%, then thats only $110 from the 200mill it has taken and thats still 75 mill short of the PR budgets. To recoup that at the theatres, the film will need to make another 150 mill world wide. For DVD they need to sell about $120 mill of them (that takes in the cost of actually producing the dvd and recouping some of the loss made at the theatres.

It is not a total flop, but it is in financial troubles.

What a load of L Ron Hubbard!!!

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Steppy412 14 years ago

@hashmanis

spent $185 mil...

I just glanced at recent box office totals - seems Knight & Day is up to over $228 mil.

Hmmm...
$228 mil (sales)
-$185 mil (cost)
---------
$43 mil (PROFIT)

That seems to be, about, a 24% profit. In my opinion - that's not too shabby.

reply

[–] missionbegins2011 14 years ago

and its not done yet , japan and italy are still to see the release of knight and day

Add $30 mn more to the profit (at least)

reply

[–] hashmanis 14 years ago

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@hashmanis

spent $185 mil...

I just glanced at recent box office totals - seems Knight & Day is up to over $228 mil.

Hmmm...
$228 mil (sales)
-$185 mil (cost)
---------
$43 mil (PROFIT)

That seems to be, about, a 24% profit. In my opinion - that's not too shabby.
----------------------

Sales is $228 at the take. But only 50% of that gets to the studio.

so $114m return to studio - $185m cost by studio = a $71m dollar loss to studio to date.

Dont make the mistake that all the money a movie makes at a BO is returned to the studio please.

To recover that last -$71m, they will need to recoup loads more than is possible in standard DVD and Cable sales. Likewise they will need to pay for the printing of the DVDs upfront and that will again add to the debt before they can start recouping and they will also need to run an additional advertising campaign which will also cost money.

If it makes say $14m at Japan, then that only reduces the debt by $7m. Expect an expensive viral campaign where they feature TC movies on tv stations prior to the release to try and gear up the BO interspersed with targeted advertising and maybe a fly in by the man himself.

What a load of L Ron Hubbard!!!

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tjones202 14 years ago

On average, films generally make 60%-65% back from the theaters. Having managed one, I know the facts there. Sure fire blockbusters even make a little more. Around 70% depending on the deal. Smaller flicks get less. For example, the second Star Wars trilogy reportedly had high demands. As much as 90% for the first week. The fact is, the longer a film runs, the more the theater makes. A block buster that quickly flames out won't make us jack. Still, take into account creative accounting, DVD sales, Tax breaks, Merchandising and promotional monies, television rights/PPV and these films that are seemingly breaking even are likely doing very well. A reported production budget of $117 million and a $228 million dollar worldwide gross so far (of course we rarely hear anyone speak in terms of worldwide gross here in the states for some reason) and this film is likely headed for a $50+ million dollar profit. If not more.

That said, I didn't much care for it. 6/10. Not horrible, but I am getting older and that fact that violence is so acceptable while sex and nudity is considered taboo is getting a tad disturbing to me. Ask an actor to kill and it's fine. Ask for a nipple and god forbid. Sorry, since that opening scene on the plane I was just turned off by the flick altogether. That, and I'm no Cruise fan. It wasn't terrible, though. Just terribly formulaic.

reply

[–] missionbegins2011 14 years ago

Nice to see someone finally claiming that the movie has made profits , i was tired of people trashing and claiming that the movie is a big bomb and that too by providing some mathematical logic's that i just couldnt comprehand , i mean lets say if the movie ends with a final tally of 250 mn then thats 250 - 117 = 133 mn in excess of the budget , no matter how high are the marketing costs and shares of movie theaters still out of the 133 mn studio is definitely going to make some money

i am a layman but its simple logic which my brain tells me is correct and that is you just cant lose money when the film has 133 mn in excess of its budget

and yeah TV rights and DVD will also add to the profits :)

reply

[–] usethatshiit 14 years ago

You Sir are a *beep* idiot.

reply

[–] missionbegins2011 14 years ago

thanks sir

you really are true to your name

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] missionbegins2011 14 years ago

you are a *beep* idiot

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hashmanis 14 years ago

@tjones202

'On average, films generally make 60%-65% back from the theaters. Having managed one, I know the facts there'

You are talking about the US domestic take. Further I would argue a 55-60% take. It has a bigger %age to the studio in the first few weeks of the run after which it tailors out to the advantage of the theatre owner. The film had a poor early run in the US taking 4 weeks or so to break 50m mark.

The foreign take is at 40-45% and is reduced or inflated depending on the exchange rates. The reason for the reduction is foreign taxes which differ in each country and of course they need to make different contractual agreements with distributors in each country and so on. The also need to cut prints for the markets although they may get away with sending some of the US made prints overseas to save money.

Even if you use your stats for the domestic run of 60% (taking the lower as this film underperformed), then thats $45.6 mill form the domestic run to the studio.

Now lets be kind and say the film was better received overseas and made the 45% of the $152m in the foreign market. That would come out at $68.4m

Add those together and you get $114m or as I said around 50% of the take form BO world wide.

NOW... The film costs are the production budget + the advertising costs + the print costs + the distribution costs.

I was kind when I said this would come out WW at around $185 mill as a total cost figure.

That means this has been a $71 million dollar loss to the studio to date.

What a load of L Ron Hubbard!!!

reply

[–] Starky_A 14 years ago

Which lets be honest will easily be made in DVD sales and TV deals.

Hell I read that for most big budget movies around 50-60% of the total income for a film comes from the secondary markets (DVD and TV) over 5 years, raising to around 70% for more movies with longer tales (special editions, so on so forth).

This film is hardly busting records, but it's not going to make a loss either - hell with international distribution rights for the DVD's to be sold, it is probably already in the black.

Very few films these days get into pure profit from the cinema alone, most go on to make that back in the years following.

Hell even water world broke even eventually.

-

We British don't need to be patriotic, or make a fuss about being best. We just know.

reply

[–] hashmanis 14 years ago

To sell dvds, you first need to pay for making them and distributing them. Further, you are competing with other DVDs that come out the same time as your movie did and you can bet your bottom dollar it will not do well with INCEPTION, TOY STORY3 AND SHREK FOREVER AFTER hitting the rental market at the same time.

TV rights then look at that and say to themselves Hmmm should I pay the same for this movie as I pay for INCEPTION? Hmmm Can you guess the answer?

It may work out over say 10 years, but until then, you have to pay the interest on the debt for the same time frame. Average DVD profit per dvd is usually one maybe 2 dollars a unit at the most. Sometimes even under 1 dollar! So it will need to sell 70 million DVDs to make the money it needs to breakeven and to make 70 million dvds you need to spend the same money printing them at least. Maybe even double that! So if it costs $2 a DVD to print, and you need to make 70 million DVDs so you can sell them to make the missing $70m to break even, you need to spend another $140mill

Now you need to recover that $140mil. What to do! Oh make more DVDS!

Silliest argument in the world that a movie makes money off DVD sales and neglecting to include the cost to make the bloody things.

Even if you argue it only costs 50cents to make a DVD, to make 70mill DVDs you need to invest an additional $35mill on a debt of $70 mill.

No way it will sell 100 mill DVDs in less than 10 years.

If you have not worked it out, Blockbusters are not as profitable for the movie industry as low cost movies that then ride the tail of the Studio's blockbuster movies. They are basically large PR exercises designed to promote the smaller films.

So while a handful of actors get paid obscene amount of money, the real profit comes from the many other actors that get paid standard actor rates.

The industry is a whore.

The only way a move can make money off DVD sales or rentals is if the whole film cost less than $200,000 to produce and say makes 3,000,000 world wide sales. Total cost including DVD production at 50 cents a DVD is under 2m. And if you get a $1 a dvd in profitm you make $3m from sales. And bugger all marketing.

What a load of L Ron Hubbard!!!

reply

[–] missionbegins2011 14 years ago

"Silliest argument in the world that a movie makes money off DVD sales and neglecting to include the cost to make the bloody things."

are you joking or what ??, you spoke about how a DVD make $2 or at the most $1 profit and then you are saying what about the printing cost ????, do i need to tell you that that price of the DVD = Cost of manufacturing/Printing + profit, where does the additional cost of printing come into picture?

no matter how many DVD's you go on printing that cost is included in the DVD price and as soon as the DVD is sold the cost is recovered

you dont need to sell additional DVD's to recover printing costs for god's sake

reply

[–] hashmanis 14 years ago

Oh dear. Let me explain. You have costs to make and a profit per unit.

For example something can cast you $2 to make and you can still make $.50 cent profit a unit.

Get it yet? No?

Disc maker Charges you 2 dollars to make disk.
Transporters charge you 1 dollar to shift disk.
Retail place charge you 3 dollars to sell disk.

Retail person also wants profit, so they sell disk at say $10 and they give you and additional say $1 profit keeping $2-3 dollars for self.

Sometimes though, you don't sell the disk at the price you wanted. Then you have 'bargain bins' where you can pick same disk at half price! So even though it cost you $6 to get unit to shop, the disk is sold for $5 and you LOSE $1 a disk.

And as you pointed out, you do NOT get your money till the disc is sold. Printing and putting in shop does not mean you made any money. Meanwhile your bank comes daily to collect the interest on your loan.

Understand now?

And remember you are already $71million in the hole here. So what do you do? Go to a cheap maker of discs? Oh that will really excite the fans! An inferior quality disk! Let me at it!

Further as you already pointed out, to make $30million of profit at $1 dollar per disc, they need to pay for printing, distribution and retail costs UPFRONT! Sure they will get it back when its sold, but before they can sell 30 million discs they have to pay the costs. And if you use my simplified example, you are looking at around $5-6 a disc UP FRONT. That means on a film you already owe $71million on, you now need to find an additional $150million or so to make those 30 million discs.

AND there is no guarantee you will sell all those discs so you could end up losing some of that $150 million you were expecting to make.

Now studios have ways to reduce costs their end by selling some of the costs off to investors, but who would be stupid enough to consider this a investment opportunity?

What a load of L Ron Hubbard!!!

reply

[–] jstang411 14 years ago

Disc maker Charges you 2 dollars to make disk.
Transporters charge you 1 dollar to shift disk.
Retail place charge you 3 dollars to sell disk.

Retail person also wants profit, so they sell disk at say $10 and they give you and additional say $1 profit keeping $2-3 dollars for self.

The DVD is actually listed on Amazon for $17.99; so they have a little more profit room than that. It'll be interesting to see what the price is if it hits "the bin" (prices go down on DVDs that don't sell that well).

My guess is, however, that Amazon and other retailers will be looking for a lot more than $3. I haven't seen it specifically for movies, but retailers typically pay about half the price of what they sell items for.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hashmanis 14 years ago

Oh Mr Cruise! I didn't know you knew how to use a computer!

What a load of L Ron Hubbard!!!

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bogwart-1 14 years ago

That would be true if it had been released only in the US. Fortunately the outside-US filmgoing population is rather better educated in film than the domestic one, and made the film profitable. It is what it is. I didn't expect to like it but it was quite good fun. What else do you want?

And that's especially true since Cruise got only half his usual fee and didn't get first dollar gross.

reply

[–] kemp444 14 years ago

"Fortunately the outside-US filmgoing population is rather better educated in film than the domestic one, and made the film profitable"

Am I reading this correctly? Are you saying this movie is more appreciated by a better educated audience?! Do you think the more educated you are (in film) the more this movie will appeal to you? Really?!
Or maybe you mean non-US film lovers tend to go more to the theaters and do less "pirating"? That would be a wrong assumption, at least in europe.

"I'm gona put that blind man on a wheel chair!"

reply

[–] bogwart-1 14 years ago

Try looking at it from a slightly different perspective. It seems to me (and to people I know who read these forums) that by and large American audiences expect too much from films like this. They are always judging, and they try to hold films and actors/writers/directors to a standard which they themselves could not possible match. Hence a large proportion of the infantile entries in trivia sections.

Then you have problems with the stars. Every time I see any comments about Cameron Diaz there's always snide carping about how old she looks and other rubbish. Who cares? Why does it matter? If there's one thing Americans are good at (I'm generalising) it's whingeing about the perceived shortcomings of other people.

And then there's Cruise. For someone who can't act, always plays the same roles, bla bla bla he's had a helluva career in Hollywood. And there's the whole Scientology thing. I personally think that Scientology is nutso to the max, but then I think the same of wingnut so-called Christians who want to burn copies of the Qu'ran. But what does it have to do with the film? Why does it matter?

In Europe we don't wear our religion on our sleeves; it's a private matter.

Now, I am not a Cruise fan, and I am not a Diaz fan. I had no intention of watching this film because of the negative things I'd heard about it. But I did get suckered into watching it, and really enjoyed it. It's a summertime comedic adventure with non-stop action, and who cares how implausible it is? It's not a documentary, it's not a film intended to win Oscars, it's just an adventure with nice settings.

The American audience at whom this film is aimed just won't get that, which is why it lost money big-time in the US. Maybe outside we are not so consumed with fear and hate, and don't feel the need to criticise everything we see.

If you watch only a few films a year then maybe it matters to you that everything is just so. But life isn't like that. If you set out with those kinds of expectations you're inviting disappointment, and when it happens you are casting around for someone to blame.

reply

[–] kemp444 14 years ago

OK... I think I understand your reasoning.

I definitely agree with your points on people complaining about Diaz looking old amd Cruise beeing a weirdo - not that they aren't correct with their statements, but those opinions have nothing to do with the quality or entertainment value of the movie.

Knight and Day is a "summertime comedic adventure with non-stop action" just like you said, and I doubt anybody went to see it with any expectation of oscar winning performances or a life changing viewing experience. People went to see it for entertainment only and just found it lacking in that aspect.
I personally agree with anyone with such an opinion of the movie. Not because it's supposed to be more than an action romcom, but because it lacked of entertainment value: poor comedy, uninspiring action scenes, lack of chemestry between dull characters, "by-the-book" plot and villains... all acceptable complaints IMHO that can be found all over this board.

I don't see anything wrong with expectations. On the contrary, I wouldn't accept tolerance to mediocrity (I'm talking about movies right now) which seems to have become a standard these last years.
Let's compare three similar movies: Knight and Day, Killers (Ashton Kutcher) and Mr. and Mrs Smith. The first one was mediocre at best, the second one was bad and the last one was entertaining. I believe most K&D haters would agree on this general assessment.
So if I'm not completly wrong about my evaluation of the american "over-critical" audience, they can appreciate a "summertime comedic adventure with non-stop action" when it's well done.
Wouldn't you agree that Killers was worst than K&D (if you saw it)? Would you blame the US audience for hating it as well? For expecting a movie of this sort to at least show the same effort as previous similar movies?

I don't know about the difference of approach between US audience and in europe, but I doubt americans are more nit-picking than the rest of the western world.
I remember that when Transformers 2 or GI Joe came out, many "critics" on the IMDB boards blamed the stupid US public for the box office success of such poor and dumb movies (which they are - hopefully we can agree on that).
Can american audience be stupid and over-critical at the same time? That would be a bit too harsh of a conclusion, even if you don't like them.
I think there are critics and apologists everywhere, with different tastes in movies.

And by the way... I do watch many movies (maybe too many) and I still criticise mediocre movies for not trying harder. My expectations have droped in the recent years do to many disappointments, but I still won't put up with run of the mill entertainment.
Where would you rank this movie among previous Cruise or even Diaz films?

"I'm gona put that blind man on a wheel chair!"

reply

[–] bogwart-1 14 years ago

Well, what can I say? I liked it, a lot of other people liked it, many - particularly Americans - didn't like it. In the same way that The Other Guys has been popular in the US, whereas I thought it was the biggest load of cack I've seen for a very long time.

So far as your three-film comparison is concerned, I liked K&D, liked Mr & Mrs Smith much more and I wouldn't watch Killers if you paid me. I don't much like Katharine Heigl and can't stand Ashton Kutcher and the premise is just silly. I'm prepared to give AK credit because of The Butterfly Effect so I did watch Personal Effects last week (mainly for Michelle Pfeiffer) and it bored the pants off me.

Hollywood makes far too many films to expect anything but a minority to be well done. Hence the mania for pursuing films as 'franchise' opportunities and the constant, usually poorly-done, remaking of foreign films. K&D could well see a sequel or two depending on the final figures, and I really don't think I would like those. Seen that, been there.

Also there is a continuing vogue for targeting demographics, where 18-25 year olds probably spend more than other groups, and this results in a dumbing-down of fans and ticket-buyers.

I would have to disagree that Americans are as one with the rest of the Western world when it comes to nitpicking. The first showing of projected pictures was, after all, by the Lumière brothers in Paris in 1895. We don't have the budgets that Hollywood has access to, so it's harder to make mainstream films that get a wide reception. Having said that, using IMDb's criteria British films generated some $3.75 billion in revenue in 2008.

A lot of the heat generated on these boards is due to insecurity and ignorance. To any American born after Reagan it is a given that the US is the best, the biggest, the beacon of democracy, the saviour of the Western world etc etc. It is especially galling when we in Europe are told by people who don't have a clue that we would all be speaking German if it wasn't for the US.

In fact is that insecurity and fear that drives, even subconsciously, those comments. I'm not being anything but truthful when I say that the US is yet to face the worst, with hugely increasing unemployment figures and 100,000 homes a month being foreclosed. That is the fault of both parties, and has brought about the total collapse of any morality or integrity that the financial sector once had. The Assistant Secretary for the Treasure under Reagan writes about this every week, and I think the message is finally getting through.

Because London is the financial capital of the world we are having a tough time, as are most Western countries, but we can get through it.

Sorry, I digress. Or at least, appear to.

I never watched stuff like Transformers or GI Joe. Not my thing at all.

Where would I rank it? I wouldn't. I've only seen two Diaz films and not that many Cruise films. I watch around 700 films a year and own over 3,000, but there are few that survive a second viewing and most don't even make that cut. For interest, Knight and Day is not a film I would watch again, probably for the reasons you cite for not liking it. It was fun whilst it was on, and that's it.

reply

[–] kemp444 14 years ago

I have to admit: I'm surprised to find that I can't find much to disagree with regarding entertainment. I hate Heigl, I only give Kutcher credit because of the first Butterfly Effect movie, Personnal Effects was boring, your view about remakes and hollywood's lack of originality and targeted audience are spot on...
I haven't seen the Other Guys yet, so no comment on that one (I haven't liked any comedy since Pineapple Express, so I have low expectations).

However, I believe your view of american "superiority complex" is a bit of a generalization. I wouldn't say "europeans" have an "inferiority complex" or hate the US because of a variety of reasons, eventhough a lot of them do.
I also don't think US general state of mind affects their preferences in movies - at least not in action romcoms.

It's not only remakes of foreign films (I personnaly only like UK, French and Australian films), it's mostly remakes of american "classics". And I wouldn't regard foreign movies as the highest source of quality cinema. I think independent movies or the occasional "smaller releases" from US are still at the top.

I won't disgress into the financial status of the western countries (mainly because I am quite clueless).
And I can't blame you for not having watched too many Diaz movies. But I do recommend you to see more Cruise movies, especially Born on the 4th of July.

Anyway, entertainement wise, we seem to be on the same page (or at least on the same book). And regarding the US vs European audience, we'll just have to disagree and leave it at that, since none of us will change the other's perception.

Thanks for explaining your stance.

"I'm gona put that blind man on a wheel chair!"

reply

[–] Ysquare 14 years ago

I do believe why movies like this 'underwhelm' at the box office is often due to the thousands of American gossip sites and magazines. They usually only resort to trashing people and generate a lot of hate towards some celebrities. I still remember how after Mouling Rouge everyone loved Nicole Kidman. Then suddenly after The Invasion bombed and Australia came out their was so much hatred towards her that the movie underperformed at the box office. Unflattering pictures, talk about box office poison ect. ect.

Of course the rest of the Western world reads those mags too, but this obsession with gossip TV, mags and blogs is not as bad as it is in the US, because Americans are bombarded with this 'trash talk' non-stop. This is also why in the US there are so many 'useless' celebrities like Hilton, Kardashian ect.
Lindsay Lohan is another example. Sure, we know that she has some problems with alcohol, drugs and was sent to jail, but we don't get daily updates on what these people do. So when a new movie comes out there are som many Americans fed up with her, just because she is constantly in the media. We don't have such an enormous celebrity obsession.

Already before Knight and Day came out there was hardly a good word about the project in the media. Diaz is too old to play the babe and Cruize can no longer be an action hero blablabla. People who actually saw the film realize that the flick has other issues, but neither does Diaz try to be the sexy babe nor does Cruize play a superhero. So a lot of people didn't even give it a chance.

reply

[–] richopp 13 years ago

I haven't seen them all, but it is 10 times better than the new MI film, which I was hoping was at least as entertaining as the last ones were. It was really bad, and I seldom say that about any film. This one grows on you the more you see it, kind of like Easy A or the first National Treasure. Fun flicks for taking your mind off your daily worries and letting you kick back and relax without taxing your brain. This ain't supposed to be Dostoevsky, you know?

It is a summer popcorn film, period. It is a Porky's-type film without the nudity. Now THERE was a great film, right? Social statements galore! HEAVY message with huge international and religious themes, right? Just what a hot summer afternoon needs...

My understanding from my brother, who was involved in the industry for 25 years, is that something called "creative accounting" is used by film studios. I have no idea what that means, but if it is like every other business in America today, the people at the top make billions and everyone else eats s--t and dies.

After all, nothing in the entire universe, which was created yesterday, is more important than money and being pretty or cute, right?

I thought so.

reply