Board Thread:Movies/@comment-3156395-20130412022554/@comment-1895174-20130521140815

You're wrong. 50% is just as significant an amount towards the gross as 50%. No matter where they come from. Not when 50% comes from 5%. And again, more franchises have been killed by disappointing domestic releases than saved by good international ones.

Don't get ahead of yourself. That's just one part of the point. The other part is that countries don't care how much other countries' films make in those other countries. But you seem to be suggesting that they do. I rest my case.

No, I refuted the American standard as the worldwide standard, by saying that it isn't used anywhere except for America. "America isn't the world" was driving the point home. You've used some form of "America isn't the world" to refute the point three or four times.

And the penny drops. However, I would argue that if there is a worldwide standard, it is that countries care how much films make in their own country, and how much films make as a whole. It doesn't mean that America's gross becomes the default for other random countries that have nothing to do with watching films in America. I rest my case.

No, the stake people have is watching the movies. But producers aren't the only people that show interest in grosses. You confuse "show interest" with "has a stake".

If that's how their tables work, then that means that their tables don't work. Furthermore, it means that the data they provide is incorrect. The data they provide is correct since it reflects the daily grosses films make in the US. Again, this is a problem of you not knowing how to read the site.

Nope. Prove it. ProfessorKilroy wrote: The international grosses shouldn't not count towards the box office gross. I really don't like not counting all of the gross towards the gross, you know?

I'm okay with being wrong on this one, but again, you don't have proof. Bolded my proof.

Like I said, I refuted the statement by giving the logical response along the lines of "something should be used in at least more than one country for it to be a worldwide standard", and used "America is not the world" to drive home the point. You've also been saying that there isn't something used in more than one country.

Who am I to say that? Maybe I should be asking you the same thing. You said it too. Another wrong assumption of yours: I've been making an argument. I haven't. I'm stating fact.

Limited variables is nice, but it's also important that a statistic is relevant. Which is why only America uses American domestic statistics. When non-USA countries require a statistic with less variables than the international one, they would look to their own domestic statistic. Not America's. Again, drawing a comparison. It's pointless to use a the domestic gross of any country other than the United States' to draw a comparison. Or should I have provided the statistics on every country each film released in (a number of which didn't exist when Howard the Duck was released in 1986, and numbers I don't have).

And I acknowledge that. What's your point? That you don't have one.

That's a lie. I would begin to list them, but I've pointed out enough already, just from you assuming assumptions. I'm not re-writing what I've said at all. You've said you didn't try to make a point by saying "America isn't the world", and you've said you didn't accuse Box Office Mojo and myself of not providing international ones. You did both of those things.

I suggest you re-direct your efforts elsewhere.