RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: It used to be that about 50%-65% of ticket sales ended up going to the studio in the form of "rentals." But these daze, each case is individual -- Terms are negotiated on a title-by-title basis, and sometimes on a nation-by-nation basis.

But a good rule of thumb is that OVER 50% of the grosses on most movies go into the studios' coffers (sometimes more than 70%). So, if your estimated budget figures are accurate, VALKYRIE would need to break $215 million worldwide before it would reach "break-even."  If the advance word on this film is any indication, it'll be lucky to make even half that much...

True. Matter of fact, it seems that these day, studios are COUNTING on the DVD making more money than the theater release. But that doesn't excuse them for making unholy bad, direct to DVD sequels to sub-par movies.

Originally posted by saturnwatcher It isn't really true that if your movie didn't break even at the Box Office, it bombed. Most movies these days generate about 60% of their total revenues from video rental, DVD sales, cable runs and TV rights. So initial box-office isn't as large a factor as it used to be.

Well, Superman Returns had many comic book fans rolling their eyes that he was able to lift -- an entire landmass made up of the one thing in the world that can kill him. I think that scene alone was what killed the movie for most viewers.

Originally posted by movieman Originally posted by moviewizguy I loved Superman Returns. One of the best superhero movies ever made. It's not bomb. It just didn't make as much money as expected. There's a difference. I loved Superman as well, the fantastic idea of a hero coming to terms with himself was executed in such a beautiful and extraordinary way was just so fantastic. The fact that this movie is being directed by the same guy that directed Superman is the only faith in this movie. While it made $390 million worldwide when the budget was $270 million, I wouldn't call it a "bomb", just a "disappointment"

I loved Superman Returns as well, the fantastic idea of a hero coming to terms with himself was executed in such a beautiful and extraordinary way was just so fantastic. The fact that this movie is being directed by the same guy that directed Superman is the only faith in this movie. While it made $390 million worldwide when the budget was $270 million, I wouldn't call it a "bomb" -- just a "disappointment"

Originally posted by moviewizguy I loved Superman Returns. One of the best superhero movies ever made. It's not bomb. It just didn't make as much money as expected. There's a difference.

In the eyes of studios, if your movie didn't break even at the Box Office, it bombed. "Superman Returns" didn't break even until after it was on DVD. Although it was a character-driven movie, it seriously lacked action, which is a major thing that comic book fans want to see in their favorite comic book character movies. But I'm just saying this because of what reactions I have gotten from comic book fans, which for the most part is that Singer failed to tell the version of Superman that fans wanted to see.

There are much better sources to get your information from than  some American-made Cruise vehicle that is tailor made for Tom. There have been several German versions made, and I would suggest that you seek those out instead.

Response from Head RAZZberry: FYI, here's an IMDb LINK, using the character name from VALKYRIE, to a listing of other versions of this same story... 

Go back to what I said earlier.  "However, it really concerns values.  Most people value an actor who becomes totally different, convincing and relatable (or repulsive, but in a way where you want to keep on watching) characters over an actor who essentially plays the same role in every movie."

That is true.  So, if Tom Cruise plays the same role over and over and, even worse, he's not really acting but is just being himself, and if "most people value an actor who becomes. . . different. . . characters" over what Tom Cruise does, then most people don't value Tom Cruise that highly, at best.  I used the words "if", not because this is hypothetical, because it's not.  I'm just laying it out for you.

It doesn't seem that Tom Cruise acts.  He's very watchable, he's very entertaining, people still pay to see Cruise, but it seems what you see on the screen is him.  Sure, those aren't his words, and he would probably never be in those situations, but it seems what you see in the film is who he is.  If you're just being yourself, people don't consider that to be acting.  So, to claim you're an actor, when you're not even acting, makes you a bad actor.

It's nice being paid well for just being yourself, but that's not acting.

Do you see our point of view?  I mean, you can still like Tom Cruise.  I think he did well in Collateral.  But even when I like him, he's still Tom Cruise.

Yes, he acts the same in every movie and that role he plays, in my opinion, is not bad. That's why I don't understand why people call him the worst actor and even bothering to make up petitions about him. If he plays the same role, which some calls good, then how is it bad?

Originally posted by moviewizguy It doesn't seem like that to me.

It's exactly what he's saying.  Perhaps the only reason you can't see it is that you are convinced Tom Cruise is a good actor.  You think that is fact.  And so, by extension, anyone who doesn't agree with that has a mental problem.  They cannot see what you deem a fact.

However, it really concerns values.  Most people value an actor who becomes totally different, convincing and relatable (or repulsive, but in a way where you want to keep on watching) characters over an actor who essentially plays the same role in every movie.  And even considering those who do play the same role over and over, we value those who are actually creating the role more than those who are just being their highly watchable and entertaining selves.

There are exceptions, of course, but by and large, that's what we tend to value.

I don't know Tom Cruise.  Never met the man in my life.  I'd doubt he'd be interested in meeting me, especially with a movie studio to run (and now fund, with one bomb out on the market and another on its way).  But it appears he plays himself or, at the very least, very slight deviations of the same character.

You might think this started when he jumped the shark, er, couch for Katie Holmes, or when he constantly pushed Scientology.  Well, this complaint was present even before all that.   I noticed it going back to Legend.  Cocktail won the Worst Picture Razzie.  People complained about Days of Thunder.  He won the Worst Screen Couple Razzie with Brad Pitt for Interview with a Vampire.  All of that was well before all the recent tabloid fodder.  It has to do with his acting, or, more to the point, the perceived lack of acting.

MWG, QoT is just making another non sequitur to help you to see the bad logic of your own non sequitur.  In other words, your saying that if our opinion of Tom Cruise's acting is that it's bad means that we need to get our heads examined is the equivalent as saying if you don't like QoT's post that means you need to have more sex.  Both are non sequiturs.

Originally posted by moviewizguy No, I wouldn't say those things and that means I need to have sex? Excuse me, I'm 15, which makes you set a bad example for teens my age.

I don't know if I'm complimenting your English as much as I am stating the fact about our American English over here.  At times, it seems we're less concerned with speaking the language as we are about just throwing words out there.  And somehow we still understand each other. . . .

As for logic, we do have a saying over here: common sense is not so common. . . .

Originally posted by Queen_of_Toad You're too kind where my English is concerned. Unfortunately I know it is not the case. But I must agree with you about logic. That seems to be a strange territory, a new frontier for too many people...

Originally posted by Queen_of_Toad If you don't like this post, then you probably need more sex.

Forgive your English?  Your English is better than most Americans' English, and your expressive logic is better than fine.

This sounds exactly like the fanbots I got used to hear over the years: It's just another one of these comments: "If you don't like [person or movie], then you must think [another opinion irrelevant to the subject]".

For example:  
1) "saying Tom Cruise can't act, is like saying Alicia Keys can't sing....."
2) "Those of you who think Tom's acting sucks probably think Cameron Diaz or Drew Barrymore are talented actresses"

Or how about extension of an opinion to another opinion like:

1) "I suppose you think that Steven Spielberg, Stanley Kubrick, Michael Mann, and Martin Scorsese are all terrible worthless directors?"

If you don't like this post, then you probably need more sex.

Originally posted by moviewizguy If you actually think Tom Cruise can act "bad", you should get your head checked. Now I have so much hate for you. First a petition on Harry Potter and now this?! What has the world come to?!

Here's a LINK to join our discussion of the TRAILER for "Valkyrie," (and there's a link to see the trailer there, as well)...