[RD] Daily Graphs and Charts

[really]

Those are all American made movies, so....

Slumdog Millionaire and The King's Speach are British.

 

[civvver]

Yeah. And the strange part is that for a lot of things films are judged just on the domestic box office. But movies really are not a domestic market.

Let's hope so for there to be any chance at a warcraft sequel!

 

[JohannaK]

You have a peculiar definition of all.

On top of the ones really mentions, The English Patient, Shakespeare in Love, Gladiator, and 12 Years a Slave are British-American, with Return of the King being Kiwi-American (so of course those do count as American for this purpose) and The Artist being French.

 

[warpus]

I bet that graph doesn't account for inflation. Hollywood likes to ignore inflation-adjusted numbers because they make their new movies look worse. But it's the only honest way to compare box office numbers across time.

 

[CavLancer]

I'm reading that right? Titanic made over 3 billion dollars? What an awful movie! My opinion of humanity just hit an iceberg, going down fast.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Slumdog Millionaire and The King's Speach are British.

I'm curious how you are defining a film as "British." Research indicates that all the winners, including these, list the usual big international corporations as their production companies. I would assume that the "domestic" market is in the country the graph was made and published in.

 

[really]

I'm curious how you are defining a film as "British." Research indicates that all the winners, including these, list the usual big international corporations as their production companies. I would assume that the "domestic" market is in the country the graph was made and published in.

The two I reference list more British production companies than international distributors. They were both funded by the British government through Film4 and the Film Council.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The two I reference list more British production companies than international distributors. They were both funded by the British government through Film4 and the Film Council.

Fair enough. Not sure I will be putting nationalities on films myself, but you do have a reasonable basis.

 

[SMcM]

I think it was The Colbert report that said that China had more people but the US was still larger by total combined weight. Tried to find a clip but google is useless when it comes to finding certain things.

Definitely just a joke. Americans would have to weigh many times as much as Chinese people for that to be the case (which they aren't).

 

[SMcM]

Fair enough. Not sure I will be putting nationalities on films myself, but you do have a reasonable basis.

What you are saying makes no sense. Why would you 'not put nationalities on films'? There is some confusion here as the British and American film industries are heavily linked, but other countries have very separate film industries, particularly because they often speak other languages. An example being that France has a distinct film industry.

 

[warpus]

With a lot of movies you can say "That is definitely a Polish movie" or whatever, but the lines are getting more and more blurried. More and more movies are sort of international collaborations between people from many different countries, many different investors, actors, directors, studios, filming locations, investors, etc.

Having said that I think you can still point to most movies made today and say what country "it's {mainly} from"

 

[Timsup2nothin]

What you are saying makes no sense. Why would you 'not put nationalities on films'? There is some confusion here as the British and American film industries are heavily linked, but other countries have very separate film industries, particularly because they often speak other languages. An example being that France has a distinct film industry.

I don't seem to recall saying that I don't put languages on films. In fact the academy awards (which was where this conversation started) has categories for "foreign language" films. Now, I could understand taking exception to this on the grounds that no language is universally foreign so the English language hubris there is pretty glaring.

Anyway, since you couldn't make sense of it let me try again. Films can be shot on locations in multiple countries, feature actors of various nationalities, and be funded by multiple production companies which usually includes at least one multi-national corporation and may include companies headquartered in a variety of nations. They are then intended for distribution internationally, at the very least anywhere that the language they are in is commonly spoken. So it seems kind of arbitrary to me to call a film "French," or "American," or any other nationality.

Really introduced the issue of government funding through (I'm guessing) some sort of state run production company, which I did acknowledge as a reasonable basis. I'm not going to take it up myself because it still leaves other production companies sort of unacknowledged...but that might be just me.

 

[SMcM]

But it's often not all that arbitrary- it's generally pretty clear cut. You seem to think that based purely on the fact that the American, British and Canadian film industries are heavily intergrated. But outside the Anglo-Saxon world, this is in fact unusual- Bollywood films, most Chinese and Japanese films, Russian films, German films, French films, etc., normally have little if any American involvement. Many of these will be produced by companies from these countries, directed by people from these countries, largely set in these countries, predominately starring actors from these countries, funded by companies from these countries, and so to deny these being Indian or Chinese or French films would be silly. It is a useful way to label/distinguish films.

Some films might be considered to be a joint venture between countries- quite a few films considered to be American-Australian films, for example. Recently there have been more American-Chinese films- The Great Wall, for example, funded and produced by a mix of Chinese and American companies and starring a mix of Chinese and American actors. Trends of globalization might mean that increasingly fewer films will have clear nationalities. But, as we are right now, merging of the global film industry hasn't gone as far as you seem to think, and different countries have very distinct film industries, and so labeling these based on their countries does make sense. If I'm watching a film that is by any reasonable definition a Russian film, I might as well call it a Russian film.

Edit: Anyway, we should stop debating this so as not to derail the thread

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Edit: Anyway, we should stop debating this so as not to derail the thread

Agreed. But before I quit I just wanted to acknowledge that you are right. Outside of English language films there does seem to be a very reasonable "nation of origin" application.

 

[Cutlass]

 

[Lohrenswald]

Didn't general motors like go broke or something in like 2008 or 9

 

[Cutlass]

Yeah. 35 or so years ago GM built half the cars in the whole world.

 

[really]

When GM's sale of Opel to PSA is done they will be down by about a million a year.

 

[Kyriakos]

The case of Japan shows that you can't get out of a ludicrously high debt to gdp ratio even if you have massive infrastructure and build/export luxury items.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The case of Japan shows that you can't get out of a ludicrously high debt to gdp ratio even if you have massive infrastructure and build/export luxury items.

Especially if you are building them out of resources you don't have.

Wait, perhaps that makes Japan not such a good example for your general rule.