You've been defending Land of the Dead like it's your little brother. Your last sentence could easily be substitued with "A film can make 20 million, but if it cost 15 to make, it's not so much of a success, now is it."

And you can go against that last sentence by saying something similar to the nonstop defense of Land of the Dead, add in dvd sales and international gross, and you have a nice profit.

I didn't think I ever said that 400 was just domestic or international combined.

I've been having a discussion about box office take ins and levels of expectations. That and market flow within the same type of film.

But I would generally think that if you are just investing 15 million and getting 5 million for your trouble, it's a far better investment then putting down 350 million and getting 50 million for your trouble. Far more money being put on the line and not enough interest getting paid out for the trouble.

I think they can do it with spiderman or xmen. If they keep making them I'll keep going unless they start to suck like the batman movies.

Well, it doesn't quite work like that. It's not like they've actually made a profit of 5 million. It might be DVD before Land really enters any profitibility, given P&A and revenue sharing.

Why are DVD sales always brought up when talking about theatrical box office? It has no relevance when talking about how much a film made at the theaters.

That's exactly my point. Compare that with 1994 when 24 films made 100 million domestically. In 1993, 29 films made 100 million. 24 films made it in 2002.

Now lets compare that with 1988, 1989, and 1990. 6 films in 1988 made 100 million, 9 films in 1989, and 9 again in 1990. I won't even bother with the late 70s and early 80s, because then it gets even worse. But just for fun, 3 films made 100 million in 1980.

My point is not to rag on Cruise or claim he doesn't draw at the box office. My point is 100 million just isn't as impressive as it used to be. It's done quite easily and by a lot of films in today's dollars. I expect his films to at least make 100 million. So the fact that his last 6 films made 100 million, is not impressive to me. The fact that he had 6 is in a row, is more impressive and shows a consistency at drawing, but still not lights out impressive. I'm more impressed by Harrison Ford career in terms of box office.

I have to ask though, do you mean 2003 and 2004? Cause only 12 films made 100 million dollars in 94 and 8 in 93.

Because the market structure has changed with the advancement and price drop of DVDs and the cost of folks making their own home theatre set ups at home rival most local theatre chains it is taking money away from a films box office take in and transfering it into a larger DVD home video sales.

Studios are also factoring this in by structuring when a dvd of a movie hits. Those windows have shrunk to about four months after the film opens. So it has plenty relevance in this sort of discussion.

When films make more money on DVD than they do in theaters, DVD sales are being brought up into how much more money a film will take in.

Hell, even the "blockbusters" will make more money on DVD than they do in theaters. Look at The Fast in the Furious. The first release of the film on DVD made over $160 million whereas the film only made $140 million theatrically.