Dr. DVD

I was just over at the top moneymaking films of all time site and they were ranked according to worldwide grosses. While I think that worldwide grosses make the final say as to whether or not a film is a flop or dud, I think studio heads think differently.
For instance, The 5th Element with Bruce Willis did moderately in the U.S., but it made a crapload of money from overseas runs. I seem to recall reading that Columbia didn't really have much vested in the flick and made money, but I doubt they would have greenlit it themselves with just the promise that it would only bring returns worldwide.
I also seem to recall reading that a lesser movie, Striptease, bombed in the U.S. but managed to make over $100 million in foreign receipts. But the article said that it would still be seen as an embarassment and financial failure by the studio. I am also certain that Worldwide grosses will be what make or break The Matrix sequels. The first one only did $177 million in the U.S. Not a small sum, but nowhere near Spider-Man or Star Wars numbers. Worldwide, The Matrix made voer $400 million, which is what I think got the expensive sequels greenlit.

Hokeyboy

This is apples and oranges. Austin Powers: Goldmember cleared $200 million domestically but couldn't sqawk past $80 million internationally. About A Boy didn't make it to $50 million stateside but cleaned up over $100 million internationally.

The only accurate total is the WORLDWIDE gross (domestic + international), which pretty much sums up how much a movie grosses from a global perspective. Example: domestically, Spider-Man outgrossed both the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter movies. When adding international grosses, both movie series outgrossed Spider-Man. Certain films have a more international appeal...

reubs82

THere are thousands and thousands of teenage girls who will go see each of these films numerous times either like happened w/ Spider-Man.

I think worldwide is the most important b/c money is money is money, no matter where it comes from.

Pants

Worldwide used to mean NOTHING! Or practicly nothing anyway. Today it is becoming VERY important, with some films making as much (or even more) internationally as they do in America. Studios are begining to take the overseas appeal of a film into consideration when they make a film.

littlefuzzy

Take a look at Spirited Away, which broke all the BO records in Japan, and barely pulled in 10-15? mil here...

Dr. DVD

Nice to see people agree with me. Is this worldwide market a recently developed factor?

LBPound

I care more about Domestic. So, that's what I voted for.

jaeufraser

It's different for different reasons. When it comes to marketing, domestic is more important in this country. The number one movie stuff often time comes from the domestic box office take. When it comes to money and deciding what to make, worldwide tallies are considered. For a movie like Austin Powers, yes domestic is more important. But for action movies and stuff with more worldwide appeal the worldwide market is of very much importance. But you must consider distribution deals when looking at these movies. The 5th element is a good example, as Columbia could've cared less about the worldwide gross as their take was only for the domestic value. Lots of movies have split distribution deals where domestic and foreign money goes to differnet places. Titanic is a great example. In the end both studios made out like bandits, with Fox paying 140 mil for the movie for international rights (and gross 1.2 billion plus) and Paramount signing a deal for half the budget before it ballooned, paying only 60 for domestic money (where it grossed 600 mil). So, there are a lot of factors to consider when saying which is more important.