The self-absorbed superrich who control Hollywood hope to get Americans abroad killed so people will ignore real issues and vote its favored candidates into office.

The self-absorbed superrich who control Hollywood hope to get Americans abroad killed so people will ignore real issues and vote its favored candidates into office.

And considering demographics, they haven't hit bottom yet.

Quietly boycott them. Indifference to the egocentric entertainment industry, their message and their product will drive a wooden stake into their hearts.

A tad off topic, but did anyone else get perturbed* by the episode of NUMB3ERS aired last Friday? The resident genius was able to use his analytical skills to detect FBI involvement in the 1971 anti-war movement, but didn't detect the role that Moscow and U.S. communists played in funding and directing the hate-America groups including SDS and splinter groups like the one Judd Hirsch's character organized.

I about flipped when the FBI agent son almost, but not quite, apologized for the FBI. Hirsch looked like he was pretty steamed himself and I'll bet there was a lot of heat about how far they would go dumping on the FBI.

For what it's worth, I sent an email complaining and asking for moral equivalence on a subsequent episode. Naturally, I won't hold my breath for it, or even for a reply.

*Really, really steamed up.

erp, I've seen that show once. I'll stick with the innocuous King of Queens.

pchuck, don't get me started on that.

Here we go again...

According to boxofficemojo.com, "Syriana" has so far scooped up $59 million at the box-office with a budget of $50 million, even though it is yet to be released in many European countries. This is means that "Syriana" is a box-office hit, one of those rare movies that make a profit from theatrical distribution.

Mork:
If it cost 50 million to make and it only made 59 million, I'm not sure that qualifies as a "box office hit." For starters, it hasn't broken even yet. The 50 million is only what it cost to actually make the film - not what it cost to market and advertise the film. Generally speaking, a film like Syriana, which didn't have the huge marketing campaign of Revenge of the Sith, probably cost about 25 million to market. So, the film isn't proftable. Yet. It's sort of like explaining to Serenity fans why that film making 37 million and having a budget of 30 million doesn't make it a "box office hit" either. Now, of course you're right that it hasn't opened up in Europe where it's sure to sell like gangbusters, but I was only addressing your point that a 59 million dollar gross and 50 million dollar cost doesn't equal a "box office smash." Heck, even if marketing costs weren't a factor, a 9 mil profit is chump change these days. I think Big Momma's House II did better.

We'll know Morko's right if they start filming Syriana II.

Bryan, I'm perfectly aware of the marketing costs, but did not mention them for simplicity's sake. You're right, I should not have said that "Syriana" IS a hit, but that it WILL be one, with European revenues.

A film like "Syriana" is bound to make more money in Europe (and the rest of the world) than in America. People here complain that Hollywood doesn't reflect the values of many Americans, but what they fail to understand that Hollywood movies are not made only, or even primarily, for American audiences.

An average Hollywood movies loses money on theatrical release, but that doesn't matter because DVD and especially television distribution are more profitable anyway.

oj: We will see more politically partisan movies made, because they have proven profitable.

Who's going to show these nominees other that Bravo?

Morko: Sigh. Here we go again. The average movie ticket price is what, like $7-8 or so? So fewer that 10 million tickets have been sold for Syriana in several months of release. In other words, something like 2% of Americans saw this movie. TV shows that draw far more people than that on a single night are not "hits"--they're cancelled.

Morko:

No, we'll see them made because that's who runs Hollywood. They make home movies like the trivial ones they nominated with the money they generate from the real movies they make for the rest of America.

European networks.

Orrin:
Showtime loves this stuff and, unlike Bravo or Trio, they can show it with the cuss words intact. They had Fahrenheit 911 on practically a continuous loop for a month.

b: Irrelevant. "Syriana" makes money on theatrical release, unlike most movies, which makes it a hit.

oj: Hollywood is a profitable business. Political considerations are secondary to business ones there.

Ah, pay channels...we don't get any.

Morko:

Exactly. So it's filmmaking that doesn't matter.

oj: I agree.

Morko: Totally relevant. OJ's comment was that no one has seen this movie. And indeed no one has. Your obsession with bringing up box office profitability (which actually IS irrelevant) as somehow refuting oj's basic point is not becoming more convincing with repetition.

Morko:

Yes, it makes money on the films people see in America and indulges the vanity of stars on the ones Europeans and Oscar voters like.

b: "Syriana" cost $50 million (+marketing), and will be making a profit. If you think no one is seeing it you need to take a basic course in arithmetic.

oj: Hollywood gets most of its profits outside of America. "Narnia", for example, made $290m in America and $380m overseas.

Yes, it made money here.

Morko:
Looks like b's math is right on. 59 mil is pocket change. Look at your own post. Narnia made 290 million. If Syriana made that kind of bank I would agree with you that it's the Smash Hit of the Century! but right now it's a mildy successful indie film with good street cred. Yes, some people did see it so "noone" is incorrect. But there's a big middle ground between "Enough people saw it to eke out a profit" and "It's Star Wars and Indiana Jones rolled into one!" If barely making a profit qualifies as a smash hit, then Plan 9 From Outer Space was a smash hit.

Also, if Hollywood isn't making movies for American theatergoers anymore, opting instead for the foriegn and DVD market, why to they keep acting suprised when the movies they make don't make any money in the domestic theatrical market?

Morko: Um, did you even read my first post at all? I showed with "basic arithmetic" that "no one" has gone to see Syriana, where 2% of people is consistent with "no one" (you can tell that my scientific training was not in nuclear physics, where one part in a million can be a huge difference...).

Bryan: I never said that Syriana is a "smash hit", those are your words. The final figure, with international revenues, for the movie may be something like $150m. In 2004, for example, Hollywood lost $2.22 billion in box-office, because most movies are not hits like Syriana (source: http://www.slate.com/id/2124078/fr/rss).

b: I maintain that several million people are not "no one", as well as that if a movie reaps tens of millions in profit it is a hit. If you disagree with these common sense facts, it's not my problem.

Actually, b, even fewer than that probably saw it. Syriana is certainly a "Brokeback Mountain" and "Farenheit 9/11" blue state/Canada hit. (This has been extensively covered in both blogs and media -- that claims for a "heartland break-out" for both movies were in fact false, that neither movie made more than a negligible profit in the red states.) And here in the blue states (I'm from LA, live in Manhattan), ticket prices are in excess of $10. So even your 2% is probably overstating it.

oj, am I such a dangerous dissident that you must censor my posts? ;)

Morko:

I haven't, but if you include profanities or too many links the software automatically censors you.

oj: No profanities, must be the links. Anyway, the software said that the post was pending approval by the moderator, so I understand it still exists somewhere.

I just checked and there are none pending. The same happened to me yesterday. Try dropping the http://

If Hollywood's progressive propaganda is so profitable then why did the head of the academy have to come out on his knees last night begging for people to go the the movie theater?

BTW: from what I've heard Syriana is not just leftist drivel, its a down-right bad movie. No matter how much some Europeans et al hate America, will they be willing to shell out their dole money to see a bad movie?

Bryan: I never said Syriana was a "smash hit", those are your words. It will probably make more than $59m in Europe and elsewhere, and will be a very successful film financially (perhaps $150m or so). The majority of Hollywood films actually lose money on theatrical release, so one that reaps dozens of millions in profit even before DVD and television revenues is a hit.

b: I maintain that several million people are not "no one".

Several million is no one in mass entertainment terms.

If Hollywood's progressive propaganda is so profitable then why did the head of the academy have to come out on his knees last night begging for people to go the the movie theater?

Wild guess: they want more money?

Fewer and fewer people will go the theater anyway, as homeviewing becomes more and more important.

Several million is no one in mass entertainment terms.

That's only America. If you think only of American market Narnia lost money (budget $180m + marketing $120m = $300m; American revenues $290m).

$300 > $59

Of course, Narnia is actually over $600 million and already 22nd all-time at the box office:

http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross?region=world-wide

And Syriana's $59 million is worldwide as well, while the $50 million cost is before promotion:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=syriana.htm

Are any of the numbers you're using real?

The $600m+ figure is for the whole world; in America it made $290 like I said.

Syriana will reap tens of millions from areas where it is yet to be released or where it was released very recently. Its marketing budget is much much lower than that of Narnia.

Morko sez "I maintain that several million people are not "no one"."

If you wish to fall for the fallacy of large numbers, be my guest. Let's just say that something like fewer than 1 in 50 Americans saw Syriana, and you can claim that your statement that "Syriana is a box-office hit" is a better summing-up of reality than oj's "no one's seen it."

Morko:

Yes and in America it cost $180 million to make, as Syriana cost $50 million.

Frankly Scarlett, I don't give a damn.

I think we can agree on this: Syriana may not be a hit, but it is not a bomb either. Quite a few great movies have done worse commercially.

What counts is that the performance of this movie will not stop similar movies from being made. In the long run, Syriana is a moderately profitable movie as well as an ugly piece of propaganda.

Isn´t it bizarre that so much anti-American propaganda is exported to the world? The next time someone is blaming George W. Bush for rising anti-Americanism, think of all the "liberal" Americans who had nothing better to do than to get on German TV to attack their country (and suck up to their host country), not a few of them Hollywood types. It is a fairly disgusting sight and it worries me. These are exactly the same people who will tell you that US policies have damaged America´s standing in the world. It is hardly conceivable that Russians or Frenchmen or Mexicans would go abroad to act like that - or make movies like that.

A better comparison than Narnia, a massive success, to Syriana would probably be Ocean's Twelve, another Clooney vehicle and one that got dreadful reviews:

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2004/OCEN2.php

It did much better box office too.

"Wild guess: they want more money?"

Then why hasn't the head of the academy come out begging every year?

Looked like flop sweat to me.

I've almost never had problems over inserting links into my comments when signed into my TypeKey acc't.

A free acc't can be opened by clicking the TypeKey link at the top of the comments box.

Half of the box office goes to the theaters.

It would be odd if Syriana did particularly well overseas. US action pictures do very well. Films full of talking don't.