Posted on 01/26/2015 11:22:06 AM PST by cotton1706
Over the course of about 5 years between 2004 – 2009, Hollywood produced no fewer than 18 anti-War On Terror box office bombs that defamed our country, our troops, and the righteous cause of the war against Islamic extremism. Every single one of those films bombed. The flop rate was 100%. Even Leftists stayed away in droves.
Let me pass along some settled science…
The domestic box office gross for all 18 of those films was around $300 million — or a pathetic $16 million each. My guess is that Hollywood lost somewhere around a billion — with “B” — dollars producing those box office bombs, that were designed specifically to undermine our warriors and to encourage the savage terrorists determined to kill them (and innocent Arabs and Muslims).
“American Sniper,” a single patriotic pro-troop film that portrays the war against those same terrorist barbarians as righteous, will out-gross all 18 of those anti-War On Terror films combined.
That’s science.
That’s math.
That’s a fact.
In just 10 days of wide release, director Clint Eastwood’s masterpiece has already grossed $200 million. Box Office Mojo now predicts “Sniper” will easily pass the $350 million mark and could possibly gross $400 million.
Here is some more math:
“Sniper” cost just $60 million to produce.
Those 18 pieces of pro-terrorist propaganda easily cost more than a billion dollars to produce.
Just think of how much more money Hollywood and its stockholders would have today if that provincial, bigoted left-wing town wasn’t packed with people who hate America. Or if those same morally illiterate simpletons believed in math and profit.
So far, on top of “American Sniper,” there have been 3 other films that depict the War On Terror as a righteous cause: “Lone Survivor,” “Act of Valor,” and “Zero Dark Thirty.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I love it when stuff like that happens.
"Redacted" for one. Ugh.
Very good movie great acting job by Bradley Cooper. I felt Eastwood depicted Kyle’s point of view, I don’t think it was a “pro war” movie, it’s just that because it’s Bush’a Iraq War, the liberals have to get in everyone’s face.
Contrast with Behind Enemy Lines, an anti UN command pro-American shoot em up, but it was Clinton’s war and the villains were the Christians slaughtering Muslims, so that was OK with the liberals. Owen Wilson ends up gleefully killing way more Serbs but that was ok.
And they get to pay homage to blacks and queers.
Which as you watch TV and movies, equates to more than 50% of our population anyway.
” My guess is that Hollywood lost somewhere around a billion — with “B” — dollars producing those box office bombs, ....”
If only that were so.
The theatre box-office numbers do not include other revenue streams — in particular, sales to pay-tv, streaming services, DVD, etc.
More importantly, they don’t “account” for the creative accounting Hollywood studios use.
http://priceonomics.com/why-do-all-hollywood-movies-lose-money/
I remember when a war on terror movie was called King Kong.
They are listed with short descriptions at this link.
Technically, that was pre-WOT so I don’t think they count that in the 18 they are talking about. Pretty bad though.
“The theatre box-office numbers do not include other revenue streams — in particular, sales to pay-tv, streaming services, DVD, etc.”
Don’t make the mistake of thinking that “other revenue streams” turn failed films into financial successes. That’s just producer spin. Studio execs pitch this upside talk while trying to save their jobs when they’re called to account for failure in front of boards of directors.
Rule of thumb for Hollywood box office: if it fails at the box office, the film is a failure. Forever. Losses can be mitigated by TV, DVD, pay-per-view, and streaming... but RARELY recovered to the point of profitability. I know of one old exception: “The Wizard of Oz,” and one modern exception: “The Polar Express.”
Both those box office disappointments finally went into profit after their initial theatrical releases. But they are outliers, not representative of the typical film financial life cycle.
I’ve noticed, as have many, that 90% of the commercials on over-the-air tv feature actors from 12% of the population.
Yes, it is sickening and gay people too. I am glad someone else noticed. Right turn Clyde.
The Hurt Locker (2009) – $17 million
The Messenger (2009) – $1.1 million
In the Valley of Elah (2007) – $6.77 million
Syriana (2005) – $50 million
A Mighty Heart (2007) – $9.1 million
Lions for Lambs (2007) – $15 million
Green Zone (2010) – $35 million
Stop-Loss (2008) – $11 million
Home of the Brave (2006) – $51,708
Grace Is Gone (2007) – $50,899
Redacted (2007) – $65,388
Body Of Lies (2008) – $39.3 million
War Inc. (2008) – $580,862
Munich (2005) – $47 million
Brothers (2009) – $28.5 million
Traitor (2008) – $23.5 million
Rendition (2007) – $9.7 million
The Lucky Ones (2008) – $266,967
The Hurt Locker wasn’t anti-war.
My screen got blurry too. Right after the (Klinton caused) 9-11. Damn projectionist.
I want a gung ho american christian psychotic sniper on the roof when my son is in those streets. And Mr. maher , God told me to kick your liberal commie fag ass if i see you in burbank.
just go to the 3 that he mentioned.
“Wounded Warriors” does not accept money from religious or firearm related groups, so, no, they don’t deserve a penny from this movie.
Your either with us or from hollywood.
Please note that I never actually claimed that the other revenue streams would necessarily turn any of those failed films into financial successes. My point was, and remains, that the other revenue streams would have offset a considerable amount of the box-office losses. The total losses will be far less than the billion-dollars claimed in the article. Not enough to make a profit — but, less than a billion-dollar loss. I was lamenting that the losses wouldn’t actually be as great as the article claimed.
I don’t dispute your “producer spin” thing — the entire industry is continuously spinning. The “creative accounting” thing is part of that spin.
BTW, movies with very low box-office returns are often actually profitable. These movies receive very limited distribution — very few theatres, for very few screenings, then it’s off to video sales. Often, these are independent “films”, that get one day in a single theatre, at a film festival. The theatre distribution is just enough to call it a “movie”, rather than a “made-for-TV movie”. That saves the studios a ton of money on promotion and distribution costs — usually about half the total cost of the movie. Those cost savings go right to the bottom line — sometimes, the video sales are enough to put that into the black.
Happy to say not only did I NOT see any of the 18, I hadn’t even heard of 1/3 of them.
I also disagreed with that film's placement on the list. Same with Munich. Both were excellent movies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.