STRONG SUCKER FOR 2008

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.

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"

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.